Automated Summary
Key Facts
Plaintiff Travis McCrea (a/k/a Travis McCrae, Travis Sintell McCrae) filed a pro se, in forma pauperis action against multiple South Carolina officials and financial officers, alleging financial misconduct, constitutional violations, and statutory breaches. The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal without prejudice due to failure to state a plausible claim, citing conclusory allegations and legally frivolous theories. The district court adopted this recommendation, finding no error in the report and dismissing the complaint without service of process.
Issues
- Plaintiff's property and trust interests are protected under the Woodland Indian Treaty and the Terra Firma Doctrine, which remain binding federal law under U.S. Const. art. VI.
- Closing and seizing Plaintiff's funds without cause violated contractual trust obligations and resulted in unlawful enrichment.
- Defendants failed to furnish required TILA disclosures, misinterpreted lending regulations to their own advantage, and thereby committed statutory fraud.
- Their actions contradict standing presidential directives requiring nondiscriminatory banking and truthful consumer disclosures in all federally insured institutions.
- The claims arise directly under the above-cited federal statutes; the Magistrate Judge erred in treating them as state-law matters.
- Defendants' pattern of conduct—coordinated closures, false reporting, and denial of services—constitutes organized discrimination and racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1962.
Holdings
- The court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process because the plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief, relying on conclusory assertions, legally frivolous theories, and statutes that do not provide a private right of action.
- The court denied the plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Time to File Objections as moot.
- The court denied the plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order and Injunctive Relief as moot.
Remedies
- Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without issuance and service of process
- Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order and Injunctive Relief (DE 15) is DENIED AS MOOT
- Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Time to File Objections (DE 17) is DENIED AS MOOT
Legal Principles
Under the legal standard outlined, objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation must be specific to avoid waiving the right to further judicial or appellate review. The court found that the plaintiff's objections were not specific and merely restated prior allegations, resulting in no error being found in the magistrate's analysis.
Precedent Name
- United States v. Schronce
- Thomas v. Arn
- Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.
- Camby v. Davis
Cited Statute
- Truth in Lending Act
- Federal Magistrates Act
- Federal Question Jurisdiction Statute
- In Forma Pauperis Statute
- Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
Judge Name
- Joseph Dawson, III
- Thomas E. Rogers III
Passage Text
- The Report concludes that Plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief and relied on conclusory assertions, legally frivolous theories, and statutes that do not provide a private right of action.
- After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the Court finds no error. The Court, therefore, adopts the Report (DE 13) and incorporates it herein by reference.
- Plaintiff's objections largely restate allegations previously raised in his pleadings and assert generalized disagreement with the Report. (DE 18.) Plaintiff invokes numerous statutory, constitutional, and treaty-based theories but does not identify any specific error in the Magistrate Judge's analysis. Therefore, the objections are overruled.