Owen-Williams v. Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration et al, No. 8:2012cv01828 - Document 3 (D. Md. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Roger W Titus on 8/8/2012. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 8/9/12)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND ADOL T. OWEN-WILLIAMS Plaintiff, v. MARYLAND MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATION, et al. Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * * * Case No.: RWT 12cv1828 MEMORANDUM OPINION The above-captioned case was filed June 20, 2012, together with a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. ECF No. 2. The Complaint concerns Plaintiff s allegations against the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration and the Assistant Attorney General who represented the agency in prior state litigation. ECF No. 1. For the reasons following, the Complaint shall be dismissed. The Complaint sounds in negligence and raises claims of trover, conversion, replevin and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff states that his car was wrongfully impounded and subsequently released to an unauthorized party, Baboucar Sallah, who he describes as a career criminal. Plaintiff claims that Sallah engaged in identity theft and fraud in order to obtain Plaintiff s vehicle. He states that a claim raising the same facts raised in the instant complaint was heard by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, resulting in a judgment in Plaintiff s favor against Sallah. See ECF No. 1 at p. 3, citing Owen-Williams v. Sallah, Civil Action #347120 (Mont. Co. Cir. Ct.). Plaintiff states, however, that Sallah was insolvent and he could not collect damages for the loss of his vehicle. Plaintiff states that during the identity theft investigation of Sallah, all of his assets were seized by the United States Secret Service and/or Montgomery County Fraud Division of the Montgomery County Police. Plaintiff mentions, without reference to a case number, that an order was issued by this court requiring the return of his vehicle, but the vehicle was never returned.1 There is no federal claim raised in the Complaint; rather, Plaintiff raises only state-law negligence and personal injury claims. Where a Complaint raises both federal and state law claims, this court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, but is free to decline supplemental jurisdiction where the federal claims are dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. ยง1367(c). In the instant case there is no basis for supplemental jurisdiction where no federal claim is raised. Thus, by separate Order which follows, the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice and in forma pauperis status denied. Date: August 8, 2012 /s/ ROGER W. TITUS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 A review of the numerous cases filed by Plaintiff in this court has failed to reveal an Order requiring the return of his property. See e.g., Owens-Williams v. Sallah, Civ. Action DKC-092670 (D. Md.) (complaint dismissed on initial review); Owens-Williams v. Montgomery County Circuit Court, Civ. Action RWT-09-2076 (D. Md.) (complaint requesting return of automobile dismissed for lack of jurisdiction); and Owens-Williams v. City of Gaithersburg, Civ. Action No. PJM-10-185 (D. Md.) (summary judgment in favor of Defendants on all counts). 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.
