IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION
Carol L. Hall, ) C/A No. 3:25-12747-CMC-PJG ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ) Manager AT&T Sandhills; Dutch Fork ) Magistrate; Complaints/Clerk of Court; Home ) Office AT&T/Area Manager, ) ) Defendants ) )
Plaintiff, Carol L. Hall, proceeding pro se, brings this civil action concerning her phone bill. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). Having reviewed the Complaint in accordance with applicable law, the court concludes this case should be summarily dismissed without prejudice and issuance and service of process. I. Factual and Procedural Background Plaintiff alleges that AT&T has been charging her too much on her phone bills and ignoring her complaints and requests for assistance. She alleges that AT&T increased the rates after she purchased her phone. Plaintiff appears to have filed a complaint with the Dutch Fork magistrate last year but does not expressly state any claims against the magistrate or clerk of court other than listing them as defendants. Plaintiff requests monetary damages. II. Discussion A. Standard of Review Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of the pro se Complaint. The court possesses the inherent authority to review a pro se complaint to ensure that subject matter jurisdiction exists and that a case is not frivolous, even if the complaint is not subject to the prescreening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 See In re Bulldog Trucking, Inc., 147 F.3d 347, 352 (4th Cir. 1998) (finding that a federal court is required, sua sponte, to determine if a valid basis for its jurisdiction exists “and to dismiss the action if no such ground
appears”); Ricketts v. Midwest Nat’l Bank, 874 F.2d 1177, 1181 (7th Cir. 1989) (“[A] district court’s obligation to review its own jurisdiction is a matter that must be raised sua sponte, and it exists independent of the ‘defenses’ a party might either make or waive under the Federal Rules.”); Franklin v. State of Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir. 1981) (providing a judge may dismiss an action sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without issuing a summons or following other procedural requirements); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”); Carter v. Ervin, C/A No. 14-865, 2014 WL 2468351, at * (D.S.C. June 2, 2014) (“[E]ven when the filing fee is paid, the court possesses the inherent authority to ensure that a plaintiff has standing, that federal jurisdiction exists, and that a case is not frivolous.”).
This court is required to liberally construe pro se complaints, which are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 214 (4th Cir. 2016). Nonetheless, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim cognizable in a federal district court. See Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684 (2009) (outlining pleading requirements under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for “all civil actions”).
1 Plaintiff paid the filing fee in this case. (ECF No. 7.) B. Analysis The instant case is subject to summary dismissal because Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the court has subject matter jurisdiction in this case. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, “constrained to exercise only the authority conferred by Article III of the Constitution
and affirmatively granted by federal statute.” Bulldog Trucking, Inc., 147 F.3d at 352. Accordingly, a federal court is required, sua sponte, to determine if a valid basis for its jurisdiction exists, “and to dismiss the action if no such ground appears.” Id. at 352; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). Although the absence of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time during the case, determining jurisdiction at the outset of the litigation is the most efficient procedure. Lovern v. Edwards, 190 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir. 1999). There is no presumption that a federal court has jurisdiction over a case, Pinkley, Inc. v. City of Frederick, 191 F.3d 394, 399 (4th Cir. 1999), and a plaintiff must allege facts essential to show jurisdiction in her pleadings. McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION
Carol L. Hall, ) C/A No. 3:25-12747-CMC-PJG ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ) Manager AT&T Sandhills; Dutch Fork ) Magistrate; Complaints/Clerk of Court; Home ) Office AT&T/Area Manager, ) ) Defendants ) )
Plaintiff, Carol L. Hall, proceeding pro se, brings this civil action concerning her phone bill. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). Having reviewed the Complaint in accordance with applicable law, the court concludes this case should be summarily dismissed without prejudice and issuance and service of process. I. Factual and Procedural Background Plaintiff alleges that AT&T has been charging her too much on her phone bills and ignoring her complaints and requests for assistance. She alleges that AT&T increased the rates after she purchased her phone. Plaintiff appears to have filed a complaint with the Dutch Fork magistrate last year but does not expressly state any claims against the magistrate or clerk of court other than listing them as defendants. Plaintiff requests monetary damages. II. Discussion A. Standard of Review Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of the pro se Complaint. The court possesses the inherent authority to review a pro se complaint to ensure that subject matter jurisdiction exists and that a case is not frivolous, even if the complaint is not subject to the prescreening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915.1 See In re Bulldog Trucking, Inc., 147 F.3d 347, 352 (4th Cir. 1998) (finding that a federal court is required, sua sponte, to determine if a valid basis for its jurisdiction exists “and to dismiss the action if no such ground
appears”); Ricketts v. Midwest Nat’l Bank, 874 F.2d 1177, 1181 (7th Cir. 1989) (“[A] district court’s obligation to review its own jurisdiction is a matter that must be raised sua sponte, and it exists independent of the ‘defenses’ a party might either make or waive under the Federal Rules.”); Franklin v. State of Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir. 1981) (providing a judge may dismiss an action sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without issuing a summons or following other procedural requirements); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”); Carter v. Ervin, C/A No. 14-865, 2014 WL 2468351, at * (D.S.C. June 2, 2014) (“[E]ven when the filing fee is paid, the court possesses the inherent authority to ensure that a plaintiff has standing, that federal jurisdiction exists, and that a case is not frivolous.”).
This court is required to liberally construe pro se complaints, which are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 214 (4th Cir. 2016). Nonetheless, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim cognizable in a federal district court. See Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684 (2009) (outlining pleading requirements under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for “all civil actions”).
1 Plaintiff paid the filing fee in this case. (ECF No. 7.) B. Analysis The instant case is subject to summary dismissal because Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the court has subject matter jurisdiction in this case. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, “constrained to exercise only the authority conferred by Article III of the Constitution
and affirmatively granted by federal statute.” Bulldog Trucking, Inc., 147 F.3d at 352. Accordingly, a federal court is required, sua sponte, to determine if a valid basis for its jurisdiction exists, “and to dismiss the action if no such ground appears.” Id. at 352; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). Although the absence of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time during the case, determining jurisdiction at the outset of the litigation is the most efficient procedure. Lovern v. Edwards, 190 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir. 1999). There is no presumption that a federal court has jurisdiction over a case, Pinkley, Inc. v. City of Frederick, 191 F.3d 394, 399 (4th Cir. 1999), and a plaintiff must allege facts essential to show jurisdiction in her pleadings. McNutt v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189
(1936); see also Dracos v. Hellenic Lines, Ltd., 762 F.2d 348, 350 (4th Cir. 1985) (“[P]laintiffs must affirmatively plead the jurisdiction of the federal court.”). To this end, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1) requires that the complaint provide “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction[.]” The two most commonly recognized and utilized bases for federal court jurisdiction are (1) “federal question” under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 , and (2) “diversity of citizenship” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. As discussed below, the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint do not fall within the scope of either of these forms of this court’s limited jurisdiction. And no other basis for federal jurisdiction is apparent from the Complaint. First, federal question jurisdiction requires the plaintiff to show that the case is one “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiffs allegations do not assert that the defendants have violated a federal statute or constitutional provision, nor is any source of federal question jurisdiction otherwise evident from the face of the pleading. Therefore, federal question jurisdiction does not exist in this case. Second, the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), requires complete diversity of parties and an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000. Complete diversity of parties in a case means that no party on one side may be a citizen of the same state as any party on the other side. See Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 372-74 nn. 13-16 (1978). Here, Plaintiff indicates that she and three of the named defendants are citizens of South Carolina. (See ECF No. 1 at 2.) In absence of diversity of citizenship, the amount in controversy 1s irrelevant. HI. Conclusion There being no apparent basis of federal jurisdiction over this matter, the court recommends that the Complaint be summarily dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Oda; msek— November 3, 2025 VameQWiisor Columbia, South Carolina UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Plaintiff's attention is directed to the important notice on the next page.
Page 4 of 5
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed 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 v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk United States District Court 901 Richland Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).