United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Knoxville
Bruce Guyton, Magistrate Judge.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
R. MCDONOUGH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
October 29, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge H. Bruce
Guyton filed his report and recommendation (Doc. 4) pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72(b). Magistrate Judge Guyton recommended that
Plaintiff be allowed to file his complaint without prepayment
of costs, but that the complaint be dismissed for
jurisdictional deficiencies. Magistrate Judge Guyton also
recommended dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) because Plaintiff did not allege sufficient
facts in his complaint to make out a legally cognizable claim
against Defendants. On November 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed
objections to the report and recommendation (Doc. 5). For the
following reasons, the Court will ACCEPT and
ADOPT the report and recommendation (Doc. 4)
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and
ORDER that the action be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for jurisdictional deficiencies.
report and recommendation, Magistrate Judge Guyton noted that
Plaintiff's complaint is “difficult to
understand” but appears to restate allegations
Plaintiff made five years ago in this Court, in an action
which he voluntarily dismissed. (Doc. 4, at 1, 5.) Despite
the confusing nature of the complaint, Magistrate Judge
Guyton was able to glean that “Plaintiff broadly
alleges that a group of persons residing in and around
Rutledge, Tennessee, somehow aided by former Tennessee
Governor Haslam, entered into a conspiracy to murder the
Plaintiff.” (Id. at 1-2.) Magistrate Judge
Guyton interpreted Plaintiff's complaint as further
alleging that the motivation to murder Plaintiff was somehow
related to his reports on the activities of a secret criminal
organization. (Id. at 2.) Although Plaintiff has
objected to Magistrate Judge Guyton's report and
recommendation, Plaintiff's objection fails to clarify
his allegations or specify which allegations, if any,
Magistrate Judge Guyton incorrectly summarized. (See
generally Doc. 5.) Additionally, the Court's
independent review of Plaintiff's complaint and
Magistrate Judge Guyton's report and recommendation
confirms that background set forth in the report and
recommendation, including the summary of Plaintiff's
allegations, is accurate. Accordingly, for the purposes of
reviewing Plaintiff's objections to Magistrate Judge
Guyton's report and recommendation, the Court
ADOPTS BY REFERENCE the factual and
procedural background set forth in the report and
recommendation (Doc. 4).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Court must conduct a de novo review of those
portions of the report and recommendation to which objections
are made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Although the Court is required to
engage in a de novo review of specific objections,
if the objections merely restate the arguments asserted in
Plaintiff's earlier motion, which were addressed by the
magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the Court
may deem those objections waived. See VanDiver v.
Martin, 304 F.Supp.2d 934, 937 (E.D. Mich. 2004).
“A general objection, or one that merely restates the
arguments previously presented is not sufficient to alert the
court to alleged errors on the part of the magistrate
judge.” Id. “An ‘objection'
that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a
magistrate's suggested resolution, or simply summarizes
what has been presented before, is not an
‘objection' as that term is used in this
context.” Id. The Sixth Circuit has also
A general objection to the entirety of the magistrate's
report has the same effects as would a failure to object. The
district court's attention is not focused on any specific
issues for review, thereby making the initial reference to
the magistrate useless. The functions of the district court
are effectively duplicated as both the magistrate and the
district court perform identical tasks. This duplication of
time and effort wastes judicial resources rather than saving
them, and runs contrary to the purposes of the Magistrates
Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs.,
932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991); see also Cole v.
Yukins, 7 Fed.Appx. 354, 356 (6th Cir. 2001) (“The
filing of vague, general, or conclusory objections does not
meet the requirement of specific objections and is tantamount
to a complete failure to object.”).
Plaintiff filed a four-page objection to Magistrate Judge
Guyton's report and recommendation, the objections are
“not sufficient to alert the court to alleged errors on
the part of the magistrate judge.” See
VanDiver, 304 F.Supp.2d at 937. The objections seek to
disqualify Magistrate Judge Guyton by accusing him of
corruption, but Plaintiff cites only Magistrate Judge
Guyton's recommendation of dismissal as evidence of his
alleged corruption. (See generally Doc. 5.) The
objections additionally purport to more fully explain the
allegations in the complaint, but they fail to show that the
allegations state a claim for relief. Most importantly,
Plaintiff does not address Magistrate Judge Guyton's
conclusion that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction
because Plaintiff does not assert a federal claim and is not
diverse from the defendants. (See Doc. 4, at 4.)
After independently reviewing Plaintiff's complaint and
the report and recommendation, the Court agrees with
Magistrate Judge Guyton's well-reasoned conclusions and
his stated reasons for recommending dismissal of
reasons stated herein, the Court hereby
ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the
Magistrate Judge Guyton's Report and Recommendation (Doc.
4) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and
ORDERS that this action be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for jurisdictional deficiencies.
given Plaintiff's repeated frivolous lawsuits and
filings, the Court will refer the Plaintiff to Chief Judge
Pamela L. Reeves for consideration of whether injunctive
measures are appropriate pursuant to Standing Order 18-04.
Plaintiff has now filed at least three frivolous lawsuits and
repeatedly filed frivolous motions in those lawsuits. See
Ferrari v. Grainger County, Tenn., et al., No.
3:14-cv-66; Ferrari v. Shelter Insurance Companies, et
al., No. 3:16-cv-591; Ferrari v. Haslam, No.
3:19-cv-422. Pursuant to Standing Order 18-04, the judges of
this District have delegated to the chief judge the authority
to enter injunctions “limiting filings by individuals
who have abused the legal process and adjudicate any matters
arising from those injunctions.” The standing order
further provides that ...