Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McRee v. Renasant Bank Department Tupelo Miss.

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division

December 6, 2016

CELIA ANNE MCREE, Plaintiff,
v.
RENASANT BANK LEGAL DEPARTMENT TUPELO MISS., Defendant.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL

          DIANE K. VESCOVO, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         On 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 jurisdiction.

         I. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT

         McRee's 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. at 1.)

         In the “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.)

         For relief, McRee seeks “Recovery of my money. Amount is $6, 166.95 100.00 levy fee = $6, 266.95.” (Compl. ¶ V, ECF No. 1.)

         II. PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

         A. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) Screening

         Pursuant 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.

         The 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.