The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER N. WIELAND, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) No. 2:24-cv-02435-TLP-cgc
v. )
)
NICK SIGNAIGO, )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS
COMPLAINT
Pro se Plaintiff Christopher N. Wieland, sued Defendant Nick Signaigo in June 2024
alleging that Defendant filed a false police report about Plaintiff resulting in his detention at the
Lakeside Behavioral Health Systems. (See ECF No. 1.) Under Administrative Order No. 2013-
05, this Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Charmiane G. Claxton to manage all pretrial
matters. Judge Claxton issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in January 2025
recommending that the Court dismiss the Complaint. (ECF No. 7.) Her R&R notified both
parties that they had 14 days to object to the R&R. Neither party objected.
In the R&R, Judge Claxton recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to
state a claim because he asserts statutory claims which lack a private right of action. (ECF No.
7.) For the reasons below, this Court ADOPTS the R&R.
BACKGROUND AND THE R&R
Plaintiff sued here in June 2024. (ECF No. 1.) He also moved for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and demanded a jury trial. (ECF Nos. 2, 6.) Judge Claxton granted leave for
Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis and entered the R&R recommending dismissal. (ECF No.
7.)
LEGAL STANDARD
A magistrate judge may submit to a district court judge proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for deciding pretrial matters. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)–(B). And “[w]ithin 14
days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file
specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If the parties do not object, the district court reviews
the R&R for clear error. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee notes. And the district court
“may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Judge Claxton entered her R&R on January 28,
2025. Neither party objected, and the time to do so has now passed. The Court therefore
reviews the R&R for clear error.
DISPOSITION
Having reviewed the record, the Court finds no clear error in Judge Claxton’s R&R. In
fact, the Court agrees with her analysis.
As Judge Claxton correctly notes, “Plaintiff offers 18 U.S.C. §1341 (frauds and
swindles), 25 C.F.R. §11.431 (Courts of Indian Offenses, receiving stolen property), 18 U.S.C.
§287 (false, fictious or fraudulent claims), 28 U.S.C. §4 (precedence of associate justices) and
criminal conspiracy as applicable statutes. These statutes (for the most part) are criminal statutes
for which there is no private right of action.” (ECF No. 7 at PageID 17.) Further, “[a] court
cannot create a claim which [a plaintiff] has not spelled out in [his] pleading,” and “district
judges have no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to pro se litigants.” Brown v. Matauszak,
415 F. App’x 608, 613 (6th Cir. 2011); Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004); see also Young
Bok Song v. Gipson, 423 F. App’x 506, 510 (6th Cir. 2011) (“[W]e decline to affirmatively
require courts to ferret out the strongest cause of action on behalf of pro se litigants. Not only
would that duty be overly burdensome, it would transform the courts from neutral arbiters of
disputes into advocates for a particular party. While courts are properly charged with protecting
the rights of all who come before it, that responsibility does not encompass advising litigants as
to what legal theories they should pursue.”), cert. denied, 565 U.S. 966 (2011). The Court
therefore declines to piece together events, individuals, and entities to try to create a viable cause
of action for Plaintiff. Having found no clear error in the R&R, the Court therefore ADOPTS
the R&R’s recommendation to dismiss the action.
CONCLUSION
The Court has reviewed Judge Claxton’s R&R and finds no clear error. And so the Court
ADOPTS the R&R’s recommendation. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Claims WITH
PREJUDICE. The Court also CERTIFIES that any appeal by Plaintiff would not be taken in
good faith and that Plaintiff may not proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.
SO ORDERED, this 4th day of March, 2026.
s/Thomas L. Parker
THOMAS L. PARKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE