Ayesha NH v. Hussain NH, 1:23-cv-00005-DRC-SKB

Plaintiff Noor Ayesha filed a pro se complaint alleging spousal abuse, harassment, and family-related misconduct against several individuals who appear to be Indian residents.
Ayesha did not pay the filing fee nor seek in forma pauperis status; the Magistrate Judge sua sponte reviewed the Complaint for frivolousness under Apple v. Glenn.
The Magistrate Judge issued an R&R recommending dismissal as frivolous for failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction, and warned that failure to object could forfeit rights.
No party objected to the R&R; the district court performed a clear-error review and found no error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis.
The court concluded the allegations concerned events in India, involved Indian residents, and many allegations were nonsensical and incomprehensible, so federal jurisdiction was lacking.
The court adopted the R&R insofar as it recommended dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, and dismissed the Complaint without prejudice to refiling in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Subject-matter jurisdiction / frivolousness	Ayesha asserts federal relief for alleged abuses and harassment	Defendants implicitly argue (via R&R analysis) that claims relate to events in India and are not cognizable here	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as frivolous under Apple v. Glenn
Failure to state a claim	Ayesha alleges various harms warranting relief	R&R treated many allegations as nonsensical and not plausibly stating federal claims	Court declined to rely on Rule 12(b)(6); disposition based on lack of jurisdiction instead
Appropriate remedy (with or without prejudice)	Ayesha seeks relief in this court	Defendants (and court) contend a U.S. forum is improper; dismissal typically without prejudice	Court dismissed without prejudice to refiling in a court of competent jurisdiction
Obligations/rights after no objections to R&R	Ayesha had opportunity to object but did not	Defendants relied on R&R and lack of objections	Court noted forfeiture principles but performed clear-error review and affirmed R&R

Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477 (6th Cir. 1999) (permits sua sponte review and dismissal of frivolous pro se complaints for lack of jurisdiction)
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1985) (failure to timely object to a magistrate judge’s R&R can forfeit a party’s right to de novo district-court review)
Berkshire v. Beauvais, 928 F.3d 520 (6th Cir. 2019) (recognizes that failure to object to an R&R results in forfeiture of appellate review)