Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Carter v. United States

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

December 13, 2017

ORLANDO CARTER, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al, Defendants.

          Dlott, J.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Karen L. Litkovitz United States Magistrate Judge.

         I. Background

         Proceeding pro se, plaintiff brings this action under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552. This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction (styled as "Emergency Motion for a Preliminary Junction/Request for Order to Show Cause/Date for Hearing"). (Doc. 19).

         Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this action on May 1, 2017. (Doc. 2). Plaintiff filed his complaint that same day. (Doc. 3). On September 21, 2017, the undersigned issued a Report recommending that plaintiffs motion for default judgment (Doc. 12) be denied. (Doc. 20). The undersigned ordered that service be perfected on defendants within sixty days. (Id.). Defendants filed an answer to plaintiffs complaint on October 23, 2017. (Doc. 22). On October 24, 2017, the undersigned entered a calendar order setting the discovery deadline for April 24, 2018 and the dispositive motion deadline for May 24, 2018. (Doc. 23).

         Plaintiff filed his motion for a preliminary injunction on September 19, 2017. (Doc. 19). Defendants have not filed a response in opposition.

         II. Preliminary Injunction Motion

         In his motion for a preliminary injunction, plaintiff argues that "[t]he government never verified the existence of a $4, 000, 000 prior to indicting Carter and filing pleadings in this Court." (Doc. 19 at 1). Plaintiff maintains that this failure violates his constitutional right to due process and causes "irreparable harm and injury daily." (Id.). Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring defendants, including the "United States Department of Justice and its officials, attorneys, employees, agents, assigns, representatives, witnesses, and all those working in agreement, conspiracy or concert with the Defendant" to:

1. Refrain from its false claim that a $4, 000, 000 debt exist or existed between PNC Bank, fka National City Bank ("PNC") and CBST Acquisition LLC, a Dynus Corporation subsidiary ("Dynus") until such time the government provides certified and authenticated PNC Bank records for Dynus to be true and correct by a PNC Record Custodian under penalty of perjury which shows the authentic existence of a $4, 000, 000 debt "records" as requested in the Verified Complaint;
2. Refrain from its false claim that Government Exhibit 3.19 contains the legal name and entity of CBST Acquisition LLC and represents a certified and authenticated $4, 000, 000 demand upon CBST Acquisition LLC until such time the government provides such records as requested in Item 1 above;
3. Refrain from its false claim that a $9, 500 financial relationship exists or existed between Dynus and Mary C. "Kay" Rogers until such time the government provides such information as requested in Exhibit A of the Verified Complaint; and
4. Refrain from its false claim that the FBI 302 Statements of local Cincinnati, Ohio PNC Bank Executives, Vince Rinaldi ("Rinaldi") and Ralph Martinez ("Martinez"), and others, regarding the authentic existence of a $4, 000, 000 debt, as entered by Defendant attorney, Mr. Benjamin Glassman, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio into the record in Case No. 1:09-CR-051, Docket No. 166, pursuant to an Order of this court (Id., Docket No. 164), are true and correct and can be wholly relied upon by this court until such time the government provides such records as requested in Item 1 above.

(Doc. 19 at 2).

         Plaintiff further states that without an injunction and court intervention, he has "no remedy to prevent the false and injurious claims and allegations by government attorneys and investigators, their abuse of power as law enforcement employees, and their malicious and wrongful prosecution of a black business ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.