# Bordages

> District Court, W.D. Tennessee · March 23, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11280786

## Case

- **Full name:** James Harry Hebert Bordages, Jr. v. Federal and Military Officials in Personal or Official Capacity
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Tennessee
- **Decided:** March 23, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11280786

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

JAMES HARRY HEBERT BORDAGES, )
JR., )
)
Plaintiff, )
) No. 2:25-cv-02653-TLP-cgc
v. )
)
FEDERAL AND MILITARY OFFICIALS )
IN PERSONAL OR OFFICIAL CAPACITY, )
)
Defendants. )

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS
COMPLAINT AND DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT

Pro se Plaintiff James Harry Hebert Bordages, Jr., sued unidentified “Federal and
Military Officials” in June 2025, alleging unspecified constitutional violations. (See ECF No. 2.)
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 July 2025 recommending that the Court dismiss the Complaint.
(ECF No. 9.) Her R&R notified both parties that they had 14 days to object to the R&R. In
response, Bordages amended his Complaint. (ECF No. 11.)
In the R&R, Judge Claxton recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to
state a claim because “[p]laintiff does not state specifically what any defendant is alleged to have
done which requires that relief be granted to him under any legal theory.” (ECF No. 9.) For the
reasons below, this Court ADOPTS the R&R. The Court also DISMISSES the Amended
Complaint because it repackages frivolous claims that this Court has dismissed many times
already.
BACKGROUND AND THE R&R
Plaintiff sued here in June 2025. (ECF No. 2.) He also moved for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis and to appear in Court remotely. (ECF Nos. 3, 8.) Judge Claxton granted leave
for Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis and entered the R&R recommending dismissal. (ECF
No. 9.) Plaintiff responded by amending his Complaint without leave. (ECF No. 11.)
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).
Objections must be “specific.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
“Overly general objections do not satisfy the objection requirement.” Spencer v. Bouchard, 449
F.3d 721, 725 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995)),
abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007); see also Solomon v.
Michigan Dep’t of Corr., 478 F. App’x 318, 320 (6th Cir. 2012). So when a plaintiff submits
only vague, general, or conclusory objections, the district court may review the R&R for clear
error, rather than de novo. See Slater v. Potter, 28 F. App’x 512, 513 (6th Cir. 2002); see also
Carter v. Mitchell, 829 F.3d 455, 472 (6th Cir. 2016) (“In general, ‘the failure to file specific
objections to a magistrate[] [judge’s] report constitutes a waiver of those objections.’” (citation
omitted)).
These limits on objections support judicial economy. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,

147 (1985) (“The Sixth Circuit’s decision to require the filing of objections is supported by
sound considerations of judicial economy.”). Raising specific objections enables district courts
to “focus attention on those issues—factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties’
dispute.” Id.; see Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)
(explaining that a “general objection to the entirety of a magistrate’s report has the same effects
as a failure to object” because it does not focus the district court’s “attention . . . on any specific
issues for review, thereby making the initial reference to the magistrate useless”); see also
Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981, 994 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[T]his Court has held that an objection
preserves an issue when it ‘explains and cites specific portions of the report which counsel
deems problematic.” (citation omitted)). With that in mind, the Court turns to Plaintiff’s

objections.
Generally, courts let plaintiffs amend their complaint before dismissing the case sua
sponte. See Brown v. Matauszak, 415 Fed. Appx. 608, 615 (6th Cir. 2011) (unpublished). But a
court may dismiss a claim when “it is patently obvious that the plaintiff could not prevail on the
facts alleged.” Id. (quoting Wolf v. Petrock, 382 Fed.Appx. 674 677 (10th Cir. 2010)). Thus the
Court need not grant leave to amend when the amendment is futile and the deficiency cannot be
cured, which is consistent “with the majority view that sua sponte dismissal of a meritless
complaint that cannot be salvaged by amendment comports with due process and does not
infringe the right of access to the courts.” Williams v. Dyersburg Police Dept., No. 18-1259-
JDT-CGC, 2019 WL 1895576, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 29, 2019) (quoting Curley v. Perry, 246
F.3d 1278, 1284 (10th Cir. 2001)).
Judge Claxton entered her R&R on July 15, 2025. Bordages filed an Amended
Complaint, without leave, on July 29, 2025. Because the Amended Complaint is futile and
Bordages offers no meaningful objections, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error.1

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, the Complaint “contains no factual allegations,” and it
is “composed of conclusory statements, statute and case citations[,] and a request for judicial
action.” (ECF No. 9 at PageID 36.) 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 Complaint here fails to “state specifically what
any defendant is alleged to have done which requires that relief be granted . . . under any legal

1 Bordages “objects to the [C]ourt’s report and recommendation in its entirety.” (ECF No. 11 at
PageID 44.)
theory.” (ECF No. 9 at PageID 38.) Thus the Complaint fails to state a claim for which relief
can be granted and is frivolous. The Court therefore finds that the Complaint should be
dismissed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or 12(b)(1).
To remedy this obvious deficiency, Bordages tries to amend his Complaint without leave.

But this is futile too because Bordages’s Amended Complaint does nothing more than repackage
his frivolous allegations that this Court has dismissed many times. In fact, Judge Christoff
provides helpful background information about Bordages previous and pending cases in an R&R
in Bordages v. WMC-TV, et al.
Bordages is no stranger to litigation in the Western District of Tennessee. On
January 27, 2012, he filed a complaint against Sports Clips, Inc. (Case No. 2:12-
cv-02060-JDT-dkv, “Bordages I”), and on October 28, 2015, he filed a complaint
against numerous governmental and private entities, including Sports Clips (Case
No. 2:15-cv-02708-STA-atc, “Bordages II”). Both Bordages I and Bordages II
involved his allegations that some combination of Sports Clips, various federal and
state governmental agencies, healthcare providers, and media companies
“conspired to plant a chip in Bordages’s scalp during a routine haircut” in April
2010 to remotely surveille and conduct experiments on him. Both Bordages I and
Bordages II were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as frivolous.
Since those dismissals, Bordages has filed a dozen other cases in the Western
District of Tennessee—including this case—some of which have been dismissed as
frivolous, and some of which remain pending.

(No. 2:25-cv-02615-TLP-atc, (W.D. Tenn.), ECF No. 19 at PageID 79.) The Amended
Complaint is another example of Bordages’s long history of wasting this Court’s time and
resources. And while the Court does not doubt that he genuinely believes his allegations and that
he has been harmed, it must once again dismiss his claims as baseless, vague, and frivolous.
Having found no clear error, the Court therefore ADOPTS the R&R’s recommendation.
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. Accordingly, 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 23rd day of March, 2026.
s/Thomas L. Parker
THOMAS L. PARKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11280786. Public record. Not legal advice.