Douglas v. Autonation Honda Covington Pike

N.D. Mississippi

Douglas v. Autonation Honda Covington Pike

DecidedSeptember 28, 2023

Docket3:23-cv-00340

StatusUnknown

This text of Douglas v. Autonation Honda Covington Pike (Douglas v. Autonation Honda Covington Pike) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Mississippi primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Douglas v. Autonation Honda Covington Pike, (N.D. Miss. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI OXFORD DIVISION

DEBRAYSHA DOUGLAS PLAINTIFF

v. CAUSE NO. 3:23-CV-340-SA-RP

AUTONATION HONDA COVINGTON PIKE, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On August 30, 2023, Debraysha Douglas filed her Complaint [1] against Autonation Honda Covington Pike, American Honda Finance Corp., and United Auto Recovery. In her Complaint [1], she raises allegations of forgery, securities fraud, breach of contract, and defamation. Douglas also filed a Motion [2] seeking to proceed in forma pauperis. On September 12, 2023, Magistrate Judge Percy issued a Report and Recommendation [4] recommending, pursuant to the screening procedure under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), that the Complaint [1] be dismissed as frivolous. The reasons for that recommendation are set forth in the Report and Recommendation [4]. Despite being given an opportunity to object to the dismissal recommendation, Douglas has not done so, and her deadline to do so has now passed. “With respect to those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections were raised, the Court need only satisfy itself that there is no plain error on the face of the record.” Gauthier v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 644 F. Supp. 2d 824, 828 (E.D. Tex. 2009) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996)). The Court has reviewed the Report Recommendation [4] and the record as a whole. Having done so, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Percy’s recommendation. The claims asserted in Douglas’ Complaint [1] are indeed frivolous. The Complaint [1] is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. For the reasons set forth above, the Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [2] is DENIED. The Report and Recommendation [4] is ADOPTED IN FULL. Douglas’ claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. This CASE is CLOSED. SO ORDERED, this the 28th day of September, 2023. /s/ Sharion Aycock UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI OXFORD DIVISION

DEBRAYSHA DOUGLAS PLAINTIFF

v. CAUSE NO. 3:23-CV-340-SA-RP

AUTONATION HONDA COVINGTON PIKE, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On August 30, 2023, Debraysha Douglas filed her Complaint [1] against Autonation Honda Covington Pike, American Honda Finance Corp., and United Auto Recovery. In her Complaint [1], she raises allegations of forgery, securities fraud, breach of contract, and defamation. Douglas also filed a Motion [2] seeking to proceed in forma pauperis. On September 12, 2023, Magistrate Judge Percy issued a Report and Recommendation [4] recommending, pursuant to the screening procedure under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), that the Complaint [1] be dismissed as frivolous. The reasons for that recommendation are set forth in the Report and Recommendation [4]. Despite being given an opportunity to object to the dismissal recommendation, Douglas has not done so, and her deadline to do so has now passed. “With respect to those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections were raised, the Court need only satisfy itself that there is no plain error on the face of the record.” Gauthier v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 644 F. Supp. 2d 824, 828 (E.D. Tex. 2009) (citing Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996)). The Court has reviewed the Report Recommendation [4] and the record as a whole. Having done so, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Percy’s recommendation. The claims asserted in Douglas’ Complaint [1] are indeed frivolous. The Complaint [1] is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. For the reasons set forth above, the Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [2] is DENIED. The Report and Recommendation [4] is ADOPTED IN FULL. Douglas’ claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. This CASE is CLOSED. SO ORDERED, this the 28th day of September, 2023. /s/ Sharion Aycock UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Douglas v. Autonation Honda Covington Pike, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/douglas-v-autonation-honda-covington-pike-msnd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack