Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Jamie Brian Ketcham, Petitioner v. Department of Defense

Case no

In the Supreme Court of the United States

Jamie Ketcham

Petitioner

V.

Department of Defense

Respondent

Appendix toPetition for a Writ of Certiorari to

The United States Court of Appeals for the

Fourth Circuit

Appendix to the petition for a WRIT OF Certiorari

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6477

JAMIE BRIAN KETCHAM,

Petitioner -Appellant^

v.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:25-cv-01115-.IFA)

Submitted: September 18, 2025

Decided: September 23,2025

Before THACKER and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamie Brian Ketcham, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

append fa

p IA

EBcamScamer

PER CURIAM:

Jamie Brian Ketcham appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice

his 28 U.S.C. §2241 action because Ketcham was not in custody and his filings were

frivolous.* The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)( 1 )(B). The magistrate judge recommended dismissal and advised Ketcham that

failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a

district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objectibns tq a;magistrate judge’s recommendation is

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. A/arrin v. Duffy, 858

F.3d 239,245 (4th Cir.

Weight v.

(4th Cir. 1985);see

also Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140,154-55 (1985). Ketcham has forfeited appellate review

by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving

proper notice. Adcbrdihgly, we deny Ketcham’s pending motions and affirm the judgment

of the district court.

We dispense with Oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* The district court’s order is a final, appealable order because the court did not grant

Ketcham leave to amend his complaint. Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 796 (4th Cir. 2022)

(en banc) (order).

fippenFt

2

jB

GQcamScamer

4:25-cv-01115-JFA

Date Filed 04/02/25

Entry Number 11

Page lot 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

C/ANo. 4:25-cv-1115-JFA-TER

Jamie Brian Ketcham,

Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

Department of Defense,

Defendant.

Jamie Brian Ketcham, proceeding pro se, filed this filed this action utilizing a 28

U.S.C. § 2241 form. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule

73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for initial review.

After performing an initial review of Petitioner’s filings, the Magistrate Judge

prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation1 (“Report”). (ECF No. 8). Within the

Report, the Magistrate Judge opines that this action is subject to dismissal because

Petitioner is not in custody and his filings are frivolous. Id. The Report sets forth, in detail,

the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates those

facts and standards without a recitation.

Petitioner was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the

docket on February 26, 2025.

Id. The Magistrate Judge required Petitioner to file

1 The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local

Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this

Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final

determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976).

4:25-cv-01115-JFA

Date Filed 04/02/25

Entry Number 11

Page 2 of 2

objections by March 12, 2025. Id. Petitioner failed to file objections. Thus, this matter is

ripe for review.

A district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions

of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. ofProb. & Parole, 914 F.2d 1330 (4th

Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate’s Report, this

Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby

v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198,199 (4th Cir. 1983).

Here, Plaintiff has failed to raise any objections and therefore this Court is not

required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. A review of the Report

and prior orders indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that this action is

subject to summary dismissal.

After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report,

this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes

the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference.

(ECF No. 8). Consequently, this action is summarily dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

April 2,2025

Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.

United States District Judge

4:25-cv-01115-JFA

Date Filed 02/26/25

Entry Number8

Page lot3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

)C/ANo. 4:25-1115-JFA-TER

Jamie Brian Ketcham,

Petitioner,

vs.

)

)

)

)

)

Department of Defense,

Respondent.

Report and Recommendation

)

-)

This is an action filed on a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 form. Pro se Petitioner is not in custody and

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (prisoner’s pleading was filed at the moment of delivery to

prison authorities for forwarding to District Court) does not apply here.

Petitioner filed this action in person and is not in custody. Petitioner alleges he has never

committed a crime, never had any court hearing, and is being falsely detained. (ECF No. 1 at 2).

Petitioner alleges he has “submitted multiple complaints to military, DOD, CIA, FBI, DOJ, Army,

Navy and more.” (ECF No. 1 at 3). As request for relief, Petitioner alleges he needs “immediate

relief to be released from being falsely imprisoned. I am also being exploited by some secret

unethical human research program.” (ECF No. 1 at 8). Petitioner alleges someone remotely

terminates his vision. (ECF No. 1 at 11). “I have been wrongfully implanted with hazardous

experimental implant devices inside my brain.” (ECF No. 1 at 12). Petitioner alleges “I have also

been wrongfully implanted with two nano camera implants.” (ECF No. 1-1 at 2). Petitioner alleges

the implants inside his head are too heavy for his body. (ECF No. 1-1 at 2). “This brain computer

interface technology allows another source to send and receive input directly to my brain all without

me being able to stop it.” (ECF No. 1-1 at 2). Petitioner alleges his wife has a secret twin that

switches out at random times and she says he is mentally ill for thinking that. (ECF No. 1-1 at 8).

Petitioner alleges there is a secret hidden tunnel under his old house where the twins “do all their

4:25-cv-01115-JFA

Date Filed 02/26/25

Entry Number 8

Page 2 of 3

sneaky dishonest research stuff.” (ECF No. 1-1 at 20).

Petitioner is not in custody and thus, this habeas action is improper and subject to summary

dismissal. Further, the allegations in the Petition are frivolous. Frivolity is when “clearly baseless”

and includes allegations that are “fanciful,” “fantastic,” or “delusional.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504

U.S. 25,32-33 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citingNeitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

325, 327-28 (1989)).When proceeding in forma pauperis, § 1915 gives the authority to pierce the

veil of the factual allegations, meaning that a court is not bound, as it usually is when making a

determination based solely on the pleadings, to accept without question the truth of the allegations.

Denton, 504 U.S. at 32. The present action is comprised of many factual allegations that appear to

be “wholly incredible.” See Boyd v. United States, 773 Fed. Appx. 702, 703 (4th Cir.

2019)(affirming lower court’s decision that allegations regarding use of a mind control program to

systemically harass clearly fell within the statute’s definition of frivolity and noting no amendment

could cure the defects).

Petitioner is not in custody, this action is frivolous, and this action is recommended to be

summarily dismissed without prejudice.

s/ Thomas E. Rogers, III

Thomas E. Rogers, IH

United States Magistrate Judge

February 26, 2025

Florence, South Carolina

Petitioner’s attention is directed to the important notice on the next page.

2