United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Southern Division
W. FLANAGAN United States District Judge
matter is before this court upon frivolity review of
plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 631(b)(1) and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), United States
Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones entered a memorandum and
recommendation (“M&R”) wherein it is
recommended that the court dismiss the case. (DE 17).
Plaintiffs timely objected to the M&R, (DE 19), and
defendants made no response. In this posture, the issues
presented are ripe for ruling. For the reasons that follow,
the court adopts the recommendation and analysis in the
M&R and dismisses plaintiffs' case. The court writes
separately to address plaintiffs' objection that
proceedings before the magistrate judge are void under law.
court incorporates, in part, section II of the M&R where
incorporated portions accurately describe the case
assert multiple counts of “trespass on the case”
against numerous defendants. Compl. [DE-1-1]. Plaintiffs
allege that Defendants acted without jurisdiction to deprive
Plaintiffs of their civil rights, specifically that
[e]ach counter-defendant exceeded its jurisdiction under
color of law by either directly or through an agent, or in
concert with another, in an attempt to unlawfully and
forcefully commit an act for the purpose of retaliating
against counterclaimants for daring to enforce claimants'
natural and constitutional rights without jurisdiction or
good cause. These acts occurred without jurisdiction under
color of law in direct violation of 18 USC 241, Conspiracy
against rights, and 18 USC 242, deprivation of rights under
color of law. Defendants worked in unison to hinder the due
process of law and to commit a fraud upon the court for the
purpose of said vindictive prosecution of claimants Loney
under color of law infringing on claimant's rights.
Id. at 2-3 ¶ 2. While Plaintiffs'
allegations are difficult to decipher, they relate primarily
to a vehicle loan Plaintiffs obtained from Defendant [USAA
Federal Savings Bank (“USAA”)]. Id. at
8-9 ¶ 33. Plaintiffs contend that USAA would not provide
them with a copy of the loan and increased the interest rate
without Plaintiffs' agreement or any written
notifications. Id. Plaintiffs allege that USAA began
calling them multiple times per day in November of 2014,
despite the fact that Plaintiffs revoked permission for USAA
to contact them by telephone. Id. at 10 ¶ 35.
Then in June 2015, Defendant AAR attempted to repossess the
vehicles secured by the loan with USAA, and in the process,
breached the peace by yelling and threatening Plaintiffs,
cutting a locked farm gate, and spilling hydraulic fluid on
Plaintiffs' property. Id. at 12 ¶¶
42-43. Plaintiffs filed suit in February 2015 against USAA in
state court, alleging violations of several federal consumer
protection statutes. Id. at 10 ¶ 36. USAA
removed the case to federal court, and requested that the
case be stayed pending arbitration. Id. at 10
¶¶ 36-37. In October 2015, USAA was granted an
arbitration award of $87, 626.58 against Plaintiffs, which
Plaintiffs tried to appeal. Id. at 13 ¶¶
47-48. Plaintiffs then filed for bankruptcy. Id. at
13 ¶ 49.
Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, including treble damages,
declaratory relief, and permanent injunctive relief.
Id. at 14-17. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek
dismissal of [Loney v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, No.
1:15-CV-292, 2016 WL 3822518, at *1 (M.D. N.C. July 13,
2016)] for lack of jurisdiction, dismissal of the bankruptcy
case, and that the court “release judgment award”
and “enter judgment vacating all orders and motions
brought before the inferior court of no record.”
Id. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek an order from the
court determining “that all orders submitted by the
[Magistrate Judge] Webster, [J]udge Jolly, [J]udge Klass and
[J]udge Eagles are hereby void and invalid . . . “
[DE-10] at 18 ¶ 98.
Standard of Review
district court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate
judge's M&R to which specific objections are filed.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The court does not perform a de novo
review where a party makes only “general and conclusory
objections that do not direct the court to a specific error
in the magistrate's proposed findings and
recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d
44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Absent a specific and timely filed
objection, the court reviews only for “clear error,
” and need not give any explanation for adopting the
M&R. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins.
Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005); Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir.1983). Upon careful
review of the record, “the 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). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court may
dismiss an action that is frivolous or malicious, fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
complaint may be found frivolous if it “lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke
v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Additionally, a
complaint fails to state a claim if it does not
“contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,
” sufficient to “allow[ ] the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). In evaluating
whether a claim has been stated, “[the] court accepts
all well-pled facts as true and construes those facts in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff, ” but does not
consider “legal conclusions, elements of a cause of
action, . . . bare assertions devoid ...