Opinion
CIVIL 1:21-cv-177-HSO-RPM
04-04-2022
JOEL B. ATTIA PLAINTIFF v. ISLE OF CAPRI CASINO AND RESORT, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [5] AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE
HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
BEFORE THE COURT is United States Magistrate Judge Robert P. Myers's Report and Recommendation [5], which recommends this civil action be dismissed. R. & R. [5] at 2. After due consideration of the Report and Recommendation [5], the record, and relevant legal authority, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [5] should be adopted as the finding of this Court, and that Plaintiff Joel B. Attia's claims should be dismissed with prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual background
On May 25, 2021, pro se Plaintiff Joel B. Attia (“Plaintiff” or “Attia”) filed a Complaint [1] against Defendants Isle of Capri Casino and Resort, Harra's [sic] Casino and Resort, Treasure Bay Casino and Resort, Boomtown Casino and Resort, Beau Rivage Casino and Resort, Hardrock Casino and Resort, Scarlette [sic] Pearl Casino and Resort, Steve Havard, Tommy Dutton, Deliliah Sayer, Darlene Elhers, David Jackson, Randy Neil, Paul Really, and Jerry Minchew, alleging that they are following and harassing him. Compl. [1] at 9. Specifically, he asserts that security guards and the CEOs of these casinos are using Nvidia equipment to surveil him. Id. Attia alleges that this equipment emits low frequency waves that are used to injure his stomach, nervous system, and brain. Id. at 10. According to Plaintiff, Nvidia has developed this weapon to terrorize innocent people, and he claims that a device was implanted inside his body which shocks and burns him. Id. at 11. Plaintiff asserts that doctors tell him that it has been inside him too long to be removed. Id. Plaintiff argues that this harassment constitutes a hate crime because he is “a Hebrew man, ” id., and he seeks $20 trillion in damages. Id. at 7.
B. Procedural history
Attia filed a Motion [2] for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, which was granted. Order [4]. Plaintiff has brought similarly strange and outrageous lawsuits in this Court in the past. See Attia v. Jackson et al., Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-211-LG-RPM; Attia v. Nvidia Corp. et al., 1:20-cv-343-HSO-JCG; Attia 2 v. Martin, et al., Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-90-LG-JCG; Attia v. Wray, Civil Action No. 1:21-cv159-RPM; Attia v. Huang, Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-179-TBM-RPM. In fact, Plaintiff has been banned from filing any future lawsuits without prior approval of the Court. See Attia v. Martin, et al., Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-90-LG-JCG.
On February 15, 2022, United States Magistrate Judge Robert P. Myers entered a Report and Recommendation [5] recommending that Attia's Complaint [1] be dismissed as frivolous and delusional under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). See R. & R. [5]. Attia has not filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation [5], and the time for doing so has passed. See id. at 3.
II. DISCUSSION
Where no party has objected to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of it. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”). In such cases, the Court applies the “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law” standard of review. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989).
Having conducted the required review, the Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation [5] is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [5] as the opinion of this Court. As such, Attia's Complaint [1] should be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous.
III. CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, the Report and Recommendation [5] of United States Magistrate Judge Robert P. Myers entered in this case on February 15, 2022, is ADOPTED in its entirety as the finding of this Court.
IT IS, FURTHER, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, this civil action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Order as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED,