Marquette Marshall v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina adopts a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and dismisses, without prejudice and without service of process, Marquette Marshall’s amended complaint against JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. The court concludes that the action is duplicative of the plaintiff’s prior frivolous litigation and rejects the plaintiff’s objections concerning duplicative litigation and the need for an independent Rule 8 plausibility analysis.

Holdings

1. When screening an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a repetitive action asserting claims identical to claims previously dismissed may be summarily dismissed as frivolous; both actions need not remain active simultaneously.
2. The court was not required to conduct a separate Rule 8 and plausibility analysis where the amended complaint was properly subject to summary dismissal as duplicative or, alternatively, frivolous for the reasons addressed in the prior action.
3. A district court must review de novo the specific portions of a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to which a specific written objection is made, while unobjected-to portions and portions challenged only by general or conclusory objections are reviewed for clear error.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an in forma pauperis action may be summarily dismissed as duplicative when the earlier action asserting identical claims has already been dismissed.
2. Whether the district court was required to conduct an independent Rule 8 and plausibility analysis in addition to dismissing the amended complaint as duplicative or frivolous.
3. What standard of review governs a district court's consideration of objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.

Disposition

dismissed