Burman v. Romano et al, No. 8:2012cv03545 - Document 2 (D. Md. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 12/20/2012. (c/m 12/20/2012 eb) (ebs2, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND ALLAH AKBAR BURMAN, # 97337-079 Plaintiff, v CHRISTOPHER ROMANO, JOSHUA WEBSTER, and MATTHEW McCORMACK. Defendants * * * * * Civil Action No. DKC-12-3545 * * * * * * *** MEMORANDUM Allah Akbar Burman has filed a complaint titled This court has no subject matter jurisdiction to proceed for want of a contract of corporate franchise or other nexus. ECF No. 1. For reasons to follow, the complaint will be dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Because Plaintiff is a prisoner seek[ing] redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity, 1 the court has an obligation to screen this complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). On review, the court shall ... dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if [it] (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). [A] complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 1 Although Plaintiff does not identify Defendants, the court takes notice that Christopher Romano is an Assistant United States Attorney and Matthew McCormack is a federal agent. Both were involved in proceedings concerning the forfeiture of property consequent to Burman s arrest. See Burman v. United States, Civil Action No. L-03-1165 (D. Md 2007); Burman v. United States, Civil Action No. L-09-1070 (D. Md. 2010). A plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), when the complaint does not contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal citations omitted) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). This standard demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Id. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. Id. This pleading satisfies the above standards. Plaintiff, a federal prisoner, claims that in 2001, defendants made a contrary conclusion of law based upon an erroneous presumption, that [Burman] was enjoying a corporate franchise subject to the jurisdiction of the franchisor STATE OF MARYLAND and/or its undisclosed principles ¦. The pleading is makes no sense. In 2001, Burman was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute narcotics and this court sentenced him to 360 months incarceration. See United States v. Burman, Criminal Action No. L-01-115 (D. Md. 2003). Burman s references to involvement in corporate franchising, debt, and financial instruments2 in this court lack factual basis and fail to state a cognizable federal claim. Consequently, the complaint will be dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim,3 and shall be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). A separate Order follows. Date: 2 December 20, 2012 /s/ DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge Plaintiff appears to adhere to ideologies embraced by those identifying themselves as Moorish Americans. 3 As it is unclear what relief Plaintiff is requesting, this matter is also dismissible pursuant to Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 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.
