United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Tyler Division
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
D. KERNODLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D.
Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Plaintiffs Dwayne
Marvin Garrett (“Mr. Garrett”) and Shirley
Garrett Webster (“Ms. Garrett”) (collectively
“Plaintiffs”), proceeding pro se, have
filed this lawsuit against various Defendants. On May 22,
2019, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and
Recommendation (Docket No. 4), recommending that the action
be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed Objections
(Docket No. 6) to the Report and Recommendation on May 31,
Court reviews de novo the portions of the Magistrate
Judge's findings to which objections have been raised. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Having reviewed the Magistrate
Judge's findings and Plaintiffs' Objections, the
Court OVERRULES the Objections (Docket No.
6) and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 4) as the findings of
Court reviews objected-to portions of the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation de novo.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(“A judge of the court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is
made.”). A court conducting a de novo review
examines the entire record and makes an independent
assessment under the law. Douglass v. United States Auto.
Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc),
superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from
ten to fourteen days).
Objections, which are captioned as “Objection to motion
for recommendation in case # 619-CV-196-JDKJDL. This court
has no jurisdiction to commit obstruction of justice, ”
states in relevant part:
This court has no jurisdiction under the Constitution of the
United States under article 1 and 5. This is a Criminal
matter which can only be resolved by the Justice Department,
Bill Barr, and a twelve man jury under title 18 USC 1001.
No. 6. Plaintiffs appear to be arguing that the Court lacks
jurisdiction to dismiss the case and that any decision in
this action must instead be made by the U.S. Department of
Justice and a “twelve man jury.” Id.
are mistaken. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under
Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution and
28 U.S.C. § 1332. Further, the Court has inherent power
to “sua sponte dismiss an action whenever
necessary to ‘achieve the orderly and expeditious
disposition of cases.'” Anthony v. Marion Cty.
Gen. Hosp., 617 F.2d 1164, 1167 (5th Cir. 1980) (quoting
Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 631 (1962)).
This power includes the authority to dismiss a complaint on
its own for failure to state a claim. Carroll v. Fort
James Corp., 470 F.3d 1171, 1177 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing
Shawnee Int'l, N.V. v. Hondo Drilling Co., 742
F.2d 234, 236 (5th Cir. 1984)). When dismissing a claim
sue sponte, a court can dismiss an action on its own
motion as long as it employs fair procedures-fairness
suggesting “both notice of the of the court's
intention and an opportunity to respond.” Id.
(quoting Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053, 1054 n.5
(5th Cir. 1998)). The Fifth Circuit has explained that a
Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation provides
sufficient notice of a court's intention to dismiss and
ample time for a response. Alexander v. Trump, 753
Fed.Appx. 201, 208 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing Magouirk v.
Phillips, 144 F.3d 348, 359 (5th Cir. 1998)), cert.
denied, 139 S.Ct. 1200 (2019). Here, the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 4) provided
Plaintiffs with notice of the Court's intention to
dismiss this action and an opportunity to respond. Plaintiffs
then responded by filing Objections. Docket No. 6. The Court
therefore possesses the jurisdiction to act and the inherent
power to dismiss this action sua sponte for the
failure to state a claim. Accordingly, Plaintiffs'
Objections are without merit.
Court also notes that on May 16, 2019, after filing this
lawsuit, Plaintiffs were enjoined from proceeding as a
plaintiff in a proceeding in this District unless they are
represented by a licensed attorney admitted to practice in
this Court or unless they first obtain permission to proceed
pro se. No. 6:19-cv-00031-JDK, Docket. No. 22. These
requirements were implemented because of Plaintiffs'
multiple frivolous lawsuits. This action is no different, and
therefore Plaintiffs' complaint in this action will be
dismissed with prejudice. Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux
& Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 838 n.2 (10th Cir. 2005).
reviewing Plaintiffs' Objections (Docket No. 6) and the
relevant pleadings and filings in this case, the Court agrees
with the Magistrate Judge's determination that this
action fails to state any claim upon which relief may be
granted. Accordingly, the Count finds that the Magistrate
Judge appropriately determined that the above-captioned case
should be dismissed with prejudice.
made a de novo review of the objected-to portions of
the Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 4), the Court
finds, for the reasons explained above, that Plaintiffs'
Objections (Docket No. 6) should be
OVERRULED and the Magistrate Judge's
Report (Docket No. 4) should be ADOPTED. The
above-captioned case is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which