Rodney Dale Class v. District of Columbia, United States Attorney Office, and...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA RODNEY DALE CLASS, Plaintiff, v. 1:25-CV-77 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY OFFICE, and UNITED STATES PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE, Defendants.

ORDER This matter is before the Court for review of the Opinion, Order, and Recommendation entered by the Honorable Joi Elizabeth Peake. (D.E. 67.) The Recommendation recommends dismissing this action. (Id.) A party may file written objections to a magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the memorandum and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1). However, “[f]rivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). Absent a specific, proper, and timely filed objection, the Court reviews only for “clear error,” and need not give any explanation for adopting a recommendation. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).

Plaintiff Rodney Dale Class filed an “Objection to Order Docket 67 and 68” (D.E. 71) listing the following objections to the Recommendation: 1. This claim/complaint was a new Administrative action brought before Rowan County, North Carolina Superior Court to address State Sovereignty and State law violation as will as the State Constitution by the defendants.

2. The Opinion has failed to address that North Carolina Sovereignty and laws, and Constitution was the grounds for the claim.

3. This claim being and Administrative action was to address the violation of State Rights by the defendants as a new claim of action.

4. Furthermore, the defendants and this Court "Opinion" has intentionally misconstrued with malice content an Administrative hearing to address Constitution and Administrative misconduct by the defendants under State law violation under willful intent and willful knowledge of the law did set out and did misconstrue with malice this action by this Party to coverup willful abuse of a public office to violate State Protected Rights.

5. Furthermore, The Administrative action did address the defendant's perjury Oath to uphold and support and defend the Constitution.

6. Which in itself become a malice crime to knowingly, willfully and with forethought to set out against North Carolina Sovereignty and the people whom are the taxpayer who pay yearly taxes for honest service and high morals from a public office and their Protect Rights under Article IV, 14th amendment and US Code 42 USC 1981.

7. Furthermore, By such a writing such an "Opinion" to intentionally misconstrue the facts has demonstrated willful intent to violate 28 USC 453 and your Canon of Judicial Ethics Codes has been willful violated as well as the Professional Rules of Conduct and perjury of all sworn Oath to support and defend the Constitution even under the Bar Charter standards.

8. Furthermore the Court Opinion may have to address 40 USC 5104(e) (1) but failed to address the law under 18 USC 930 (h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection ( a) or ( e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be 9. Furthermore by this Court "Opinion" not acknowledging the facts under 18 USC 930(h) it states" no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility," the Court" Opinion" has become biased and prejudiced to the laws that has come before this Court.

10. The Opinion willfully failed to consider following in the complaint, the Constitution under Article IV, 14th amendment section 1 and 42 USC 1981 […] 11. See 18 USC 930 as placed into evident as further proof of the defendant malice prosecution with willful intent to disregard the Protected rights of this Party.

12. Furthermore, to misconstrue "An" Administrative Action Claim" within a State which is this "Party" first avenue to address willful misconduct of a Public Agencies and its employees, public policies when violation of their sworn Oath and procedures becomes corrupt, and 13. When it willfully violates the Sovereignty of a State and the taxpayer protect rights within that State as well the United State as North Carolina is Considered a "State" and not a "Territory "within the United States.

14. Furthermore, to misconstrue with malice "An" Administrative Action Claim" and to "Convert" it to a FTC claim to coverup willful Oath Perjury of the defendants becomes willful abuse of taxpayer tax funds and willful abuse of a public office with intent to commit fraud waste and abuse which is a crime as well.

15. UNITED STATES DICTRICT COURT FOR MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA is by definition a " Territorial Court" and not the State court as defined in these section of laws pointed out in the Opinion as pointed to 28 USC 1442 and 1446 as the right to remove and this case "See Evident of the correct court wording district court of the United States as legislative enacted." […] 16. Furthermore, as the Opinion pointed out that the Plaintiff point to a number of federal statutes violation and the federal Bar charter 70503 grounds for Disqualification for refusal to uphold the Constitution under a false oath of office.

17. This district court is aware that federal statutes is always the charging instrument; A charging instrument is a formal written document, such as an indictment, complaint, or information, that officially accuses a person or organization of committing a criminal offense. It initiates the criminal court process, outlines specific charges, and provides the defendant with notice of the allegations against them.

18. Whereas the Opinion pointed out Statute being willful violation become the burden of proof and the unwillingness to adhere to the Constitution under a number of voluntary "choices" to agree to an Oath swearing in as defined in the Constitutional, federal Statute and State Statutes requirement once this is pointed out in a court filing this becomes ground for" Reconsideration” 19. Whereas the U.S. ATTORNEY OFFICES claim to be the UNITED STATE/ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in "ALL" Federal courtroom "as the Plaintiff By" such bold claims The U.S. Attorney Office becomes the UNITED STATES/UNITED STATE OF AMERICAN, and the U.S. Attorney Office is the correct party to be brought before an Administrative Hearing as the legal definitions below within the legislative definition state the following.

20. Legal definitions of the United States generally include the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and often territories (like Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands) and possessions, as defined in 21 USC § 387(22) It often signifies a federal corporation or an entity with jurisdiction over these areas, note 28 USC§ 3002(15) […] 26. Whereas the People hold ALL political power under the Constitution whereas the United States and the States etc,. are just defined as land mass made of soil/ dirt as enacted by Congress in the above section of law to be the correct as definition of law as defined in 18 USC 5, 5 USC 1501, 5 USC 5921, 21 USC 387 (22) and under 28 USC 3002(15) judicial and Judicial Procedures define it as a Corporation / Business and public office building of a Corporation and not a Government as the are your legal and lawful definition of the United States, 27. Whereas the United States is defined as a In Title 5 of the U.S. Code, specifically concerning travel and subsistence expenses for government employees, the "United States" is defined geographically as the several States and the District of Columbia. This definition typically includes the 50 states and the District of Columbia, "and once again points out the United States is soil dirt not and "government" but a Corporation with inner office of employees that is hire by and through taxpayer funding.

28. Even the employees of the Corporation are under the rules of employment are required to voluntarily to take an Oath to secure employment and once such oath under volunteer choice has been taken, they are forever bound to comply with this volunteer commitment or be charged for perjury under false employment.

29. A geographically boundary of soil and dirt lack physical capabilities of bring any claim of action.

30. The U.S. Attorney and this Court did with full knowledge of their action subvert the District of Columbia as a defendant off this action in order to obstruct due process of law to have them address at a later date.

31. Whereas the United States Attorney is in the District of Columbia home office the claim against the defendant should have been addressed along with the other two as there was no Motion to separate the defendants filed.

32. District of Columbia is in default as theirs no Motion to separate parties and no representation.

33. Whereas Toll and Rolls are private citizens acting as whistleblower and is setting before congressional hearing I am a party to Toll and Rolls as a whistleblower as well.

34. This action be started as a private citizen Administrative action under 60 stat 237 APA not a FTC to prove misconduct and coverup of one government employee covering up for another government employee under willful Oath violation under fraud abuse and waste.1 (D.E. 71, pp. 3–11.)

Class only makes two clear, specific, non-frivolous objections to the Recommendation. First, Class argues that the Recommendation failed to consider his claims related to state sovereignty, state law violations, and the North Carolina Constitution. Second, Class argues that the recommendation did not consider Article IV of the United States Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 42 USC 1981, or 18 USC 930.

A. Class’s Claims Class’s first three objections concern the specific claims in this action. (D.E.

71, p. 3.) The Recommendation describes his claims as claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. (See D.E. 67, p. 4.) Class argues that he was bringing claims related to violations of state rights, including state sovereignty, state law, and the North Carolina Constitution. However, the Complaint and its attachments do not allege violations of any North Carolina law or constitutional provision. (See D.E. 1, Ex. F- 1–F-5). Therefore, this objection lacks merit.

B. Consideration of Claims Class also argues that the Recommendation failed to consider Article IV of the United States Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 18 U.S.C. § 930(h). (D.E. 71, pp. 3–11.)

However, Class does not explain why the Recommendation should have addressed those provisions, and the facts alleged in the Complaint do not clearly demonstrate their applicability. Accordingly, this objection lacks merit.

Additionally, since the Recommendation was entered, Plaintiff has filed a “Motion to Strike Docket 65” (D.E. 70), “Void Order in Violation of 28 USC 1446” (D.E. 72), “Notice of Mailing Recommendation Objections to R&R” (D.E. 73), “Remand for Removal back to State Administrative Court Rowan County Superior Court for Lack of Jurisdiction” (D.E. 74), “Notice of Appeal on Case #1:25CV77 or The Court has not inserted “[sic]” to denote each grammatical or typographical error in the original text, due to the frequency of such errors throughout the filing.

Remand Back to Lower Administrative State Court” (D.E. 75), “Notice of Appeal” (D.E. 76); “Notice of Withdraw of the Appeal and Preserving to a Future to Appeal” (D.E. 83); “Procedural Demand Pretrial Demand Rule 16 and Under Speedy Trial Act” (D.E. 84); “Citizen Arrest Claim State Sovereignty Issue has been Willfully Avoided to Evade Prosecution” (D.E. 85); “Judicial Notice 28 U.S. Code Part IV – Jurisdiction and Venue” (D.E. 86); “U.S. Attorney has Failed to Respond to Questions Before Them Such as Unlawful Orders Question” (D.E. 87); and “Judicial Prejudice Court Lacks Objectivity Under Biased” (D.E. 88). These filings do not raise any additional specific non-frivolous objections to the Recommendation.

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (D.E. 67) is ADOPTED, Plaintiff’s “Motion to Strike Docket 65” (D.E. 70), “Void Order in Violation of 28 USC 1446” (D.E. 72), “Notice of Mailing Recommendation Objections to R&R” (D.E. 73), “Remand for Removal back to State Administrative Court Rowan County Superior Court for Lack of Jurisdiction” (D.E. 74), “Notice of Appeal on Case #1:25CV77 or Remand Back to Lower Administrative State Court” (D.E. 75), “Notice of Appeal” (D.E. 76); “Notice of Withdraw of the Appeal and Preserving to a Future to Appeal” (D.E. 83); “Procedural Demand Pretrial Demand Rule 16 and Under Speedy Trial Act” (D.E. 84); “Citizen Arrest Claim State Sovereignty Issue has been Willfully Avoided to Evade Prosecution” (D.E. 85); “Judicial Notice 28 U.S. Code Part IV – Jurisdiction and Venue” (D.E. 86); “U.S. Attorney has Failed to Respond to Questions Before Them Such as Unlawful Orders Question” (D.E. 87); and “Judicial Prejudice Court Lacks Objectivity Under Biased” (D.E. 88) are DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

A Judgment dismissing this action will be entered contemporaneously with this Order.

This the 1st day of June, 2026.

/s/ David A. Bragdon United States District Judge