James Harry Hebert Bordages, Jr. v. WMC-TV, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee adopted a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and dismissed James Harry Hebert Bordages, Jr.’s complaint with prejudice. The court concluded that the allegations of a conspiracy involving unauthorized surveillance were vague, baseless, and frivolous, and it denied the motion for a temporary restraining order.

Holdings

1. Objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation must be specific; vague, general, or conclusory objections do not identify issues for de novo review, allowing the district court to review the recommendation for clear error.
2. The court adopted the recommendation that the complaint's vague, nebulous, baseless, and frivolous allegations did not support federal subject matter jurisdiction and warranted dismissal with prejudice.
3. The district court found no clear error, adopted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, dismissed Plaintiff's claims with prejudice, and denied his motion for a temporary restraining order.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff's general objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation required de novo review.
2. Whether the complaint's vague and frivolous surveillance allegations supported subject matter jurisdiction and stated a viable basis for relief.
3. Whether the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the complaint and deny a temporary restraining order should be adopted.

Disposition

dismissed