Clervrain v. Keller et al, No. 1:2018cv01854 - Document 10 (N.D. Ga. 2018)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING the Magistrate Judge's 4 Final Report and Recommendation. This case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Amy Totenberg on 6/4/2018. (sap)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Clervrain v. Keller et al Doc. 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION MANETIRONY CLERVRAIN, Plaintiff, v. J .A. KELLER, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-CV-1854-AT ORD ER This m atter is before the Court on the Magistrate J udge’s Report and Recom m endation (“R&R”) [Doc. 4] recom m ending that this case be dism issed without prejudice. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court reviews the Magistrate J udge’s R&R for clear error if n o objections are filed to the report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files objections, however, the district court m ust determ in e de novo any part of the Magistrate J udge’s disposition that is the subject of a proper objection . Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). On May 17, within the tim e allowed to file objections to the R&R, Plaintiff filed a “‘Motion for Objection and Recom m endation ’ Or, Extention for Good Caused [sic].” (“Motion”, Doc. 6.) nonsensical. Plaintiff’s m otion is unclear and in part In addition to seeking an extension of tim e, Plaintiff’s m otion apparently responds to the R&R and restates portions of the Com plaint. (See Dockets.Justia.com Motion , Doc. 6 at 2; Com plaint, Doc. 1 at 1-2.) Rather than grant Plaintiff’s m otion , the Court construes the m otion as tim ely-filed objections to the R&R an d reviews the R&R de novo. The Court has reviewed the R&R de novo in its entirety and finds the R&R correct and Plain tiff’s objections without m erit. In the Com plaint, Plain tiff seeks an issuance of a violation ordinance un der the Federal Civil Rights Act, (“FCRA”); 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the above defendan ts who are: J.A. Ke lle r. Mitch e ll, et al, who is the Director of the Southeast Regional Office (“SRO”), or The Southeast Apartness Negligence (“SAN”), Atlanta, Giorgia, am ong others, the defendan ts an ticipating in the apartheid operation with the (“PMB”), or The Secrecy Operation Managem ent (“SOM”) while the plain tiff was in their custody, he had suffered injuries, or the various violation for the constitutions, as well as for violation s of the various crim inal m isconducts against the United States of the claim s challenging to m itigate the power of prison official in which they are not above the laws, or in violation of the federal policies and the constitution s. (Com plaint, Doc. 1 at 1) (em phasis, capitalization, spelling, and gram m ar in original.) Plaintiff further states that the purpose of this m otion is to prepare for courts procedures while being retaliate by the (“BOP”), and its partners for the allegations of their ‘crim in al en terprise’, and to abolish apartheid in each region in the United States. (Id.) (em phasis, capitalization, spelling, and gram m ar in original.) As pointed out by the Magistrate J udge, “Manetiron y Clervain has been a prolific litigant, pursuing approxim ately thirty . . . cases” in federal district and appeals courts across the coun try. (R&R at 1.) 2 In the R&R, the Magistrate J udge concluded that “Clervrain has raised no claim (s) against Keller or Mitchell upon which he would be entitled to relief in this Court . . . .” (R&R at 6.) This is because (1) Plaintiff failed to provide any specific factual allegations relating to the nam ed defendan ts’ involvem en t in the alleged “apartheid”; and also because (2) Plaintiff’s allegations all pertain to locations outside this venue. (R&R at 4-6.) In his response to the R&R, Plain tiff n otes: “It is clear an d settled that Georgia is listed as one of the state that part of the allegation of Apartheid which, gives the court absolute jurisdiction in this m atter of this case . . . .” H owever, this conclusory statem ent does n ot show that the Magistrate J udge erred. As the Magistrate J udge stated, “to the extent that Clervrain raises an y claim s that m ight liberally be construed as asserting specific violations of his federal civil rights, those claim s relate to events alleged to have taken place . . . outside the Northern District of Georgia.” (R&R at 5.) Further, Plaintiff’s lack of allegations involving this district was only one of the two deficiencies noted by the Magistrate J udge. Even if Plaintiff’s allegations con cern ed this district, his allegations as to the two nam ed defendan ts are still too n onspecific and nonsensical to entitle him to relief. In short, and as the Magistrate J udge correctly found, Plain tiff’s Com plaint raises no colorable claim s against either Defendant that would entitle him to relief. Accordingly, the Court AD OPTS the Magistrate J udge’s Report and 3 Recom m endation as the opinion of this Court. For the reasons stated in the Magistrate J udge’s Report and Recom m endation, this case is D ISMIS SED W ITH OU T PREJU D ICE. The Clerk is D IRECTED to han dle this m atter consistent with the instructions of the Magistrate J udge on page six (6) of the Report and Recom m endation. IT IS SO ORD ERED this 4th day of J une, 20 18. ___________________________________ AMY TOTENBERG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4
]]>
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.
