Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Brunson v. United States

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

September 3, 2014

Ronald Brunson, Plaintiff,
v.
United States; Federal Bureau of Investigation; Attorney General of the United States; and United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina; Defendants.

ORDER

JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge.

The pro se plaintiff, Ronald Brunson, brings this personal injury action alleging that he was injured by an "internal intelligent monitor machine" which was "captured" by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action[1] has prepared a Report and Recommendation and opines that the plaintiff's complaint is frivolous and is barred under the doctrine of res judicata. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation.

The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on July 22, 2014. However, the plaintiff failed to file objections. Instead, the plaintiff filed a letter asking the court to "please allow me to remove my lawsuits" and return all his file papers and documents so that he can close his case and refile in another court. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

As the Magistrate Judge notes in her Report, the plaintiff's complaint fails to cite any federal statute or constitutional provision and provides only conclusory statements alleging a personal injury. Moreover, the complaint presents irrational and factually frivolous allegations which are insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction in this case. The plaintiff has a history of filing at least 17 frivolous and repetitive claims which have been summarily dismissed. As such, the Magistrate Judge recommends that a pre-filing injunction be issued. This court agrees.

Accordingly, the Clerk is authorized to assign a civil action number for docket control purposes for any future filings of the plaintiff; the Magistrate Judge is authorized to direct plaintiff to pay the statutory filing fee for any complaint alleging that the defendants in this case or other cases have injured plaintiff in the manner described herein; and the court is authorized to summarily dismiss an action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process for any such complaint if the full statutory filing fee is not paid.

The plaintiff's request to return all his filed papers (ECF No. 16) is denied. If he wishes to obtain copies of all the documents he has filed in his cases in this court, he may write the Clerk of Court, who will advise him of the cost of such copies.

After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report and Recommendation, this court finds the Magistrate Judge's recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. The Report is incorporated herein by reference.

Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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