The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
NORTHERN DIVISION
No. 2:23-CV-11-D
MOLLIE M. COSTON, )
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
DONALD C. AYSCUE, et al.,
Defendants.
On February 16, 2023, plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed a complaint [D.E. 1]. On March 7,
2023, the court ordered plaintiff to correct filing deficiencies [D.E. 5]. On March 20, 2023, plaintiff
filed a second complaint, a financial disclosure, a notice of self representation, and a proposed
summons. See [D.E. 6, 7, 8, 9]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court referred this matter to
Magistrate Judge Numbers to determine whether plaintiff corrected her filing deficiencies, for a
memorandum and recommendation on the plaintiff s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [D.E. 11],
and for a frivolity review. On May 8, 2023, Magistrate Judge Numbers granted plaintiff's motion
to proceed in forma pauperis, and issued a Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”)
recommending that the court dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See [D.E.
On May 19, 2023, plaintiff responded to the M&R [D.E. 15].
“The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determination of
those portions of the magistrate judge’s report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th
Cir. 2005) (cleaned up); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Absent a timely 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, 416 F.3d at 315 (quotation
omitted). If a party makes only general objections, de novo review is not required. See Wells v.
Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1997). “In order to preserve for appeal an issue in a
magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with
sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection.”
Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted); see United States v.
Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007).
The court has reviewed the M&R, the record, and plaintiff's response. Plaintiff made no
objection to the M&R, and the court is satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record.
As for the response, plaintiff alleges “Racial Discrimination” and states:
It is overwhelmingly known that the practice of racial discrimination runs
tremendously in natural in the southern United States. This is not surprising, it’s
worldly [sic] known. It should not be accepted. This is my reason for filing in the
United States District Court. The United States District Court is the only court that
Black Americans have ever received relief.
North Carolina State Court would not allow me to file anything in the
“Perquimans County Court.” That’s discrimination in itself.
This is the area where “Andrew Brown” was executed by the Pasquotank
County Sheriffs Department. Andrew Brown’s head was blown off by a military
assault rifle where no sheriff was charged for that horrific crime.
I’ve been racially threatened by the defendants each time I drive by my
property. I was told by the defendants, if I’m seen riding down Skinner Road
something terrible will happen to me.
As for the money that Hood Ellis stold [sic] from me. The North Carolina
State Bar Association located in Raleigh North Carolina have received my petition
against Hood Ellis. Im awaiting there [sic] response. I’m hoping to be successful in
reimbursement of my money.
Pl, Objs. [D.E. 15] 1-2. Plaintiff’s response, however, does not create subject-matter jurisdiction
in this court.
In sum, plaintiff's objection to the M&R [D.E. 15] is OVERRULED and the court
DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. ©
SO ORDERED. This _23day of May, 2023.
J S C. DEVER II
United States District Judge