United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Eastern Division
TERRENCE W. BOYLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the Memorandum and
Recommendation ("M&R") of United States
Magistrate Judge James E. Gates [DE 6] and for consideration
of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. [DE 1].
Memorandum and Recommendation
Judge Gates has filed an M&R recommending that
plaintiff Dorothy Wise be dismissed as a plaintiff as she
has failed to sign the motion to proceed in forma
pauperis, the financial disclosure statement, and the
notice of self-representation. A district court is required
to review an M&R de novo if a party
specifically objects to it or in cases of plain error. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Thomas v. Arn474 U.S.
140, 149-50 (1985). The district court is only
required to make a de novo determination of those
specific findings to which the plaintiff has actually
objected. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200
(4th Cir. 1983). Plaintiffs have not objected to the
M&R. The Court finds no error and ADOPTS the M&R in
its entirety. Plaintiff Dorothy Wise is DISMISSED.
Motion, to Proceed In forma Pauperis and frivolity
Eddie Wise having demonstrated appropriate evidence of
inability to pay the required costs of court, his motion to
proceed in forma pauperis [DE 1] is GRANTED. The
clerk is DIRECTED to file the complaint. [DE 1 -1 ].
proceeding in forma pauperis may be dismissed at any
time if it is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). A
complaint is frivolous if "it lacks an arguable basis
either in law or fact." Neitzkev. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A plaintiff proceeding in forma
pauperis must "meet certain minimum standards of
rationality and specificity, " and delusional or
fantastic claims which are clearly baseless are subject to
dismissal. Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 74 (4th Cir.
1994). A court may also dismiss all or any part of a
complaint which fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted or which seeks money damages from a defendant
immune from such recovery. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Wise's complaint seeks a declaration under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2201, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and 5 U.S.C. § 706.
Mr. Wise and wife Dorothy operate a livestock farm in Nash
County, North Carolina and have previously received farm
operating loans under the Unites States Department of
Agriculture-Farm Service Agency (USDA-FSA) Farm Loan Program.
The complaint alleges that on at least three different
occasions Mr. and Mrs. Wise have requested a hearing before
the Department of Agriculture's Administrative Law Judge
seeking an expedited formal hearing on the merits. The
complaint further requests that the Agency stop all offsets
against plaintiffs until the hearings and all appeals are
completed. In the background of the complaint, Mr. Wise
alleges that his rights under the Equal Credit Opportunity
Act (ECOA) were recklessly disregarded by their USDA-FSA loan
manager and that he has suffered actual damages and severe
emotional distress. Mr. Wise further states that the
government has violated the Pigford Consent Decree by
attempting to foreclose on the subject property and by
failing to provide a hearing on the merits.
than the relief requested by Mr. Wise, his complaint is
generally comprised of copied language from other cases,
including his own proceeding filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia. See Wise v.
United States, Civil Action No. 15-01331 (CKK), 2015 WL
8024002, at *1 (D.D.C. Dec. 4, 2015), aff'd, 654
Fed.App'x 2 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Indeed, the background
section of the instant complaint copies verbatim from the
memorandum opinion entered by the D.D.C. on December 4, 2015.
Id. That memorandum opinion and related order
granted a motion to dismiss the Wises complaint for failure
to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and
dismissed the remaining defendants on res judicata
grounds. Beyond reciting language from an order entered in a
prior case involving the Wises, the complaint currently
before the undersigned does no more than provide block
quotations from other cases on, inter alia, the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Administrative
Procedures Act, and the preclusive effect of administrative
proceedings on ECO A claims.
Wise has failed to allege any facts, much less sufficient
facts to state a claim that is facially plausible. Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The
Court would note that Mr. Wise is no stranger to the federal
courts and the rules and procedures which accompany the
filing of an action. See, e.g., Wise, No. CV
15-01331 (CKK), 2015 WL 8024002, at *5 n. 2 (discussing cases
involving the Wises in the E.D.N.C); see also United
States v. Wise, No. 5:14-CV-844-FL (E.D.N.C); Wise
v. UnitedStates Dept. of Agriculture, No. 4:13-CV-234-BO
(E.D.N.C). Finally, although it is difficult to discern from
the complaint what actions by the USDA Mr. Wise specifically
complains of, it has already been determined that the USDA
did not abuse its discretion by not holding a formal hearing
as requested by the Wises. Wise, 2015 WL 8024002 *8.
for the foregoing reasons, the Memorandum and Recommendation
of Judge Gates is ADOPTED and plaintiff Dorothy Wise is
DISMISSED. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis
is GRANTED and the ...