UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

CARYL DANITA CARBY, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) 2:25-cv-00295-SDN ) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ) OFFICE OF PRESIDENT, et al., ) ) Defendants ) RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER REVIEW OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Plaintiff alleges that Defendants1 unlawfully conducted surveillance on her and her family members. (Complaint, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed without prepayment of fees, which motion the Court granted. (Motion, ECF No. 3; Order, ECF No. 6.) In accordance with the statute governing actions filed without the prepayment of fees, a preliminary review of Plaintiff’s complaint is appropriate.

(e)(2). Following a review of Plaintiff’s complaint, I recommend the Court dismiss the matter. DISCUSSION

is designed to ensure meaningful access to the federal courts for individuals unable to pay the cost of bringing an action. When a party is proceeding

1 The named defendants consist of the United States Government (Office of the President), the Government of Kenya, the Government of Nigeria, and the State of Florida. without prepayment of fees, however, “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines,” inter alia, that the action is “frivolous or malicious” or “fails to state a

claim on which relief may be granted.”

(e)(2)(B). “Dismissals [under § 1915] are often made sua sponte prior to the issuance of process, so as to spare prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints.” Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989). “A self-represented plaintiff is not exempt from this framework, but the court must construe his complaint ‘liberally’ and hold it ‘to less stringent standards than formal

pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Waterman v. White Interior Sols., No. 2:19-cv-00032- JDL,

, at *2 (D. Me. Nov. 5, 2019) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007)). “This is not to say that pro se plaintiffs are not required to plead basic facts sufficient to state a claim.” Ferranti v. Moran,

(1st Cir. 1980). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conducted unlawful surveillance on her and her

family members, stalked her, and defamed her. (Complaint at 5-6.) Plaintiff maintains that Defendants’ actions violate the United States Constitution. (Complaint at 4.) Plaintiff’s mere assertions that Defendants defamed her, stalked her, and unlawfully surveilled her are insufficient to state an actionable claim. See Young v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,

(1st Cir. 2013) (complaint may not consist entirely of “conclusory

allegations that merely parrot the relevant legal standard.”). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “demand[] more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). “A pleading that offers labels 2 and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”

Because Plaintiff has not alleged any facts to support the bald allegations in the

complaint, dismissal is warranted. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing analysis, after a review of Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to

, I recommend the Court dismiss the matter. NOTICE A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate judge’s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the district court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy thereof.

Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to de novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court’s order.

/s/ John C. Nivison U.S. Magistrate Judge

Dated this 9th day of June, 2025.

3