United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR SUA SPONTE
K. VESCOVO, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
November 4, 2016, the plaintiff, Celia Anne McRee
(“McRee”), a resident of Memphis, Tennessee,
filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, (Compl., ECF No. 1), accompanied by a motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 3). In
an order dated November 8, 2106, the court granted McRee
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 7.)
This case has been referred to the United States Magistrate
Judge for management and for all pretrial matters for
determination and/or report and recommendation as
appropriate. (Admin. Order 2013-05, Apr. 29, 2013.) For the
reasons that follow, it is recommended that this case be
dismissed for failure to state a claim and for lack of
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
court-supplied complaint form is entitled “Complaint
for Violation of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. §
1983.” (ECF No.1.) The complaint names Renasant Bank
Legal Department of Tupelo, Mississippi
(“Renasant”) as the sole defendant. (Id.
“Statement of Claim” section of her complaint
against Renasant, McRee hand-wrote:
The Tupelo, Miss Renasant Bank withdrew/abstracted money
based on a Notice of Levy from ACS Support, Philadelphia, Pa.
(IRS). I did not owe the $6, 166.95 and had not filed a 1040
in the year 2003 because I did not earn enough to file. (My
Collectable business in Chip'n Dale Mall, Memphis, TN.
had closed.) I am military and not a U.S. citizen and did not
owe the taxes - however, Renasant Bank (which is still my
bank in Memphis) insists I recover the money from the IRT/DOT
because they complied with the levy from ACS.
(Id. ¶ IV.) McRee attached to her complaint a
four-page handwritten statement in which she indicated the
money was removed from her account on November 26, 2012, and
she has been pursuing the return of her money for four years.
(ECF No. 1-1.)
relief, McRee seeks “Recovery of my money. Amount is
$6, 166.95 100.00 levy fee = $6, 266.95.” (Compl.
¶ V, ECF No. 1.)
PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) Screening
to Local Rule 4.1(a), service will not issue in a pro
se case where the pro se plaintiff has been
granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis until the
complaint has been screened under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). The clerk is authorized to issue summonses to
pro se litigants only after that review is complete
and an order of the court issues. This report and
recommendation will constitute the court's screening.
court is required to screen in forma pauperis
complaints and to dismiss any complaint, or any portion
thereof, if the action
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be ...