SILVA v. SWIFT ( 2023 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA DANIEL JAMES SILVA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:21-cv-865 ) JESSIE SCHAUDIES and ) TAS RIGHTS MANAGEMENT, ) ) Defendants. ) ******************************** DANIEL JAMES SILVA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:21-cv-868 ) VENABLE LLP, ) ) Defendant. ) ******************************** DANIEL JAMES SILVA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:21-cv-870 ) JESSIE SCHAUDIES, VENABLE LLP, ) 13 MANAGEMENT, NEAL AND ) HARWELL, TAYLOR ALISON SWIFT, ) DOUG BALDRIDGE, ) ) Defendants. ) ******************************** DANIEL JAMES SILVA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:22-cv-33 ) TAYLOR ALISON SWIFT, ) ) Defendant. ) ******************************** DANIEL JAMES SILVA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:22-cv-69 ) TAYLOR ALISON SWIFT and ) NASHVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, ) ) Defendants. ) ******************************** DANIEL JAMES SILVA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:22-cv-100 ) TAYLOR ALISON SWIFT, ) ) Defendant. ) ******************************** DANIEL JAMES SILVA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:22-cv-127 ) TAYLOR ALISON SWIFT, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER On September 21, 2022, the United States Magistrate Judge’s Order and Recommendation (“Recommendation”) was filed and notice was served on the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. (1:21-cv- 865, Docs. 6, 7); (1:21-cv-868, Docs. 5, 6); (1:21-cv-870, Docs. 6, 7); (1:22-cv-33, Docs. 3, 4); (1:22-cv-69, Docs. 3, 4); (1:22-cv-100, Docs. 3, 4); (1:22-cv-127, Docs. 3, 4). In the Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge’s recommends that the above-captioned actions be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous and malicious. No objections were filed within the time limits prescribed by Section 636. On October 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed pro se motions to dismiss each civil action with prejudice. While Plaintiff offers a number of reasons for his motion to dismiss, in view of the history of Plaintiff’s frivolous and malicious filings, this court finds the motions to dismiss should be denied. Plaintiff’s motion recites that he received a medical diagnosis from Grayson County Detention Center, (1:21-cv-865, Doc. 9 at 1), suggesting Plaintiff may be an individual subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff does make general allegations as to the Magistrate Judge and the Recommendation. The general objections are not sufficient to require de novo review, see United States v. Midgett, 478 F.3d 616, 621-622 (4th Cir. 2007), and are frivolous. Nevertheless, this court has conducted a de novo review, and finds the Recommendation should be adopted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (1:21-cv-865, Doc. 6); (1:21-cv-868, Doc. 5); (1:21-cv-870, Doc. 6); (1:22-cv-33, Doc. 3); (1:22-cv-69, Doc. 3); (1:22-cv-100, Doc. 3); (1:22-cv-127, Docs. 3), is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned actions be filed, and are hereby, DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2) (B) as frivolous and malicious. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions to Dismiss, (1:21-cv-865, Doc. 9); (1:21-cv-868, Doc. 8); (1:21-cv-870, Doc. 9); (1:22-cv-33, Doc. 5); (1:22-cv-69, Doc. 5); (1:22-cv-100, Doc. 5); (1:22-cv-127, Doc. 5), are DENIED. A Judgment dismissing this action will be entered contemporaneously with this Order. This the 17th day of February, 2023. Wat 1. olan, United States District J e