Lee Perry filed suit against numerous governmental and non-governmental entities. He alleged violations of the United States Constitution and various federal statutes, including the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1871, the Safe Water Drinking Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act based on the defendants’ alleged involvement in a conspiracy to deprive African American descendants of slaves of their interests in fifteen million acres of land and mineral rights across the United States. In orders dated February 11, April 27, and April 28, 2020, the district court dismissed with prejudice all of Perrys claims against all defendants. In addition to the district courts orders, we have considered the pleadings, exhibits, and briefs in this case. For the reasons articulated below, we AFFIRM.
Perry raises two points of error on appeal: (1) that the district court violated his right to due process by dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim, and (2) the district court violated his right to due process by dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Perrys first argument on appeal is without merit. He asserts that the district court violated his due process right by dismissing his claims against certain defendants with prejudice before he had the opportunity to amend his pleading. The timeline of motions filed at the district court shows otherwise. The district court allowed Perry to file an amended complaint and considered it before granting the relevant motion to dismiss.
Perrys second argument on appeal is also without factual basis. He asserts that the district court violated his due process rights by dismissing certain defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction without affording him a reasonable opportunity to respond. Again, the record demonstrates otherwise. The district court ruled after Perrys time to file a response had expired.
In sum, Perry has failed to allege specific facts sufficient to show that he suffered any cognizable injury. See Perry v. R.R. Commn of Texas, 668 F. Appx 123 (5th Cir. 2016). We AFFIRM the dismissal of this case.
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTE
Per Curiam:*
FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.