Dewhart v. Yarbrough et al, No. 4:2021cv00430 - Document 11 (N.D. Ala. 2021)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING and ACCEPTING the 9 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. The court concludes that this action is due to be dismissed without prejudice as frivolous. The court will enter a separate Final Order. Signed by Judge Karon O Bowdre on 11/30/2021. (JLC)

Download PDF
Dewhart v. Yarbrough et al Doc. 11 FILED 2021 Nov-30 AM 09:45 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA MIDDLE DIVISION JAMES EDWARD DEWHART, Plaintiff, v. NANCY YARBROUGH, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 4:21-cv-0430-KOB-JHE MEMORANDUM OPINION The magistrate judge filed a report on October 29, 2021, recommending this action be dismissed without prejudice as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). (Doc. 9). The plaintiff has filed an objection to the report and recommendation. (Doc. 10). However, the plaintiff does not point to any legal or factual error in the report and recommendation. Instead, he restates his request that the court “appoint a Patent Attorney to patent the Retrodiscovery Research Career Amassed inventions of the plaintiff.” (Doc. 9 at 2). The plaintiff has also attached a “Disclosure Document” that he sent to the Assistant Commissioner for Patents in Washington, D.C., related to one of his inventions, and a portion of a newspaper article. (Doc. 9 at 3). The plaintiff’s objection lacks merit. Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the report and recommendation, and the plaintiff’s objection, Dockets.Justia.com the court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report and ACCEPTS the recommendation. The court concludes that this action is due to be dismissed without prejudice as frivolous. The court will enter a separate Final Order. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of November, 2021. ____________________________________ KARON OWEN BOWDRE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.