Opinion
C. A. 3:23-6759-MGL-PJG
02-07-2024
Jareca Talena Sumter, Plaintiff, v. Curtis Loftis; Edwards Simmer; Kilolo Kijakazi; Harry M. Lightsey, III, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PAIGE J. GOSSETT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Jalena Talena Sumter, proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.) for initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Having reviewed the Complaint in accordance with applicable law, the court concludes this action should be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff alleges that birth certificates serve “as an ownership interest in collateral security and is issued through a [social security number] account or cardholder.” (Compl., ECF No. 1 at 9.) Plaintiff indicates there exists “doubt regarding which defendant(s) is/are entitled to the property” stemming from the collateral issued by her birth certificate. (Id.) Plaintiff requests the defendants-various federal and state officials-“be required to interplead and settle among themselves their rights to the property and that the plaintiff be discharged from all liability.” (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff also asks the court to enjoin the defendants from “instituting any action against the plaintiff for recovery of the property or any part of it.” (Id.) Plaintiff indicates the court has jurisdiction over this action because “the registration of births and associated legal consequences” involves the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. (Id. at 6.)
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of the pro se Complaint. The Complaint has been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without prepaying the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. This statute allows a district court to dismiss the case upon a finding that the action “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 relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
This court is required to liberally construe pro se complaints, which are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 214 (4th Cir. 2016). Nonetheless, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim cognizable in a federal district court. See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684 (2009) (outlining pleading requirements under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for “all civil actions”).
B. Analysis
The court concludes that this action should be dismissed as frivolous. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (providing that a claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact”) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)). Plaintiff's allegations about the existence of securitized collateral attached to her birth records and social security number have no basis in reality. Even assuming the existence of such property associated with Plaintiff, the Complaint lacks any allegations that would explain how the named defendants are connected to the property or why they would have a claim to the property that would require an interpleader action. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 (requiring that a pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”'); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (stating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, but it requires more than a plain accusation that the defendant unlawfully harmed the plaintiff, devoid of factual support). Therefore, Plaintiff's Complaint lacks any legal or factual basis upon which the court can construe a cognizable legal claim against the defendants.
This is a common, debunked, false claim. See “Frauds, Phonies, & Scams-Birth Certificate Bonds,” United States Department of Treasury, https://www.treasurydirect.gov/laws-and-regulations/fraud/birth-certificate-bonds/#id-further-reading-707678 (last visited January 4, 2024).
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, the court recommends that the Complaint be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
901 Richland Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).