Rouse v. Gibson

Full title: Xezakia Rouse, Plaintiffs, v. Julie Gibson, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Date published: Jun 23, 2017

Case No. 1:17cv71 (S.D. Ohio Jun. 23, 2017)

Opinion

Case No. 1:17cv71

06-23-2017

Xezakia Rouse, Plaintiffs, v. Julie Gibson, et al., Defendants.

Judge Michael R. Barrett

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge's February 6, 2017 Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). (Doc. 5). The parties were given proper notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the R&R in a timely manner. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-950 (6th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff did not file objections to the R&R. Instead, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Withdraw his Complaint (Doc. 6); Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 7) and Motion for Consolidation of Jurisdictions and Motion for Disclosure of Defendants (Doc. 8).

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter. The Magistrate Judge reviewed Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Magistrate Judge explained that Plaintiff alleges violations of his constitutional rights and federal statutes based on allegations that various individuals and groups have tapped his phones, used facial recognition software to identify and follow him, and also used "Remote Neural Monitoring and Voice to Skull" technology against him. The Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff's allegations do not state a claim with an arguable basis in fact or law, or are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court finds no error in this conclusion. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge's February 6, 2017 R&R (Doc. 5) is ADOPTED. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED with PREJUDICE.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 4); Motion to Withdraw his Complaint (Doc. 6); Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 7) and Motion for Consolidation of Jurisdictions and Motion for Disclosure of Defendants (Doc. 8) are DENIED as MOOT.

This Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that for the foregoing reasons an appeal of any Order adopting this R&R would not be taken in good faith and therefore, Plaintiff is DENIED leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Plaintiff remains free to apply to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. See Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803 (6th Cir. 199), overruling in part Floyd v. United States Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274, 277 (6th Cir. 1997).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Michael R . Barrett

JUDGE MICHAEL R. BARRETT