McKissick v. Caldwell
2:25-cv-00013
E.D.N.C.May 22, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs Ellis McKissick and Iola M. Stevens, acting pro se, filed a complaint against Emmett Caldwell in Dare County Superior Court.
- Defendant Caldwell, also pro se, removed the case to federal court and requested to proceed in forma pauperis.
- Caldwell filed additional motions, including for special service and to vacate a default judgment.
- The court referred the matter to a magistrate judge for recommendations on Caldwell's motions and review of the removal.
- Magistrate Judge Jones recommended granting Caldwell's in forma pauperis motion, remanding the case to state court, and dismissing other motions as moot.
- No party objected to the magistrate's recommendations; therefore, the district court reviewed for clear error and adopted the recommendations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal jurisdiction | Not specifically addressed | Removal proper, seeks IFP | Federal court remands to state court |
| In forma pauperis status | Not addressed in record | Caldwell entitled to IFP | Caldwell's IFP motion granted |
| 4c3 Service motion | Not addressed in record | Caldwell requests service | Dismissed as moot |
| Default judgment vacation | Plaintiffs seek judgment | Caldwell seeks vacation | Dismissed as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (sets standard of de novo or clear error review for magistrate recommendations)
- Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198 (4th Cir. 1997) (explains requirement for specific objections to warrant de novo review)
- Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239 (4th Cir. 2017) (regarding specificity required in objections to magistrate findings)
- United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616 (4th Cir. 2007) (on specificity of objections for appellate review)