govinfo:USCOURTS-ncmd-1_25-cv-00077-2

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

3 
 
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 facilit y, 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. 

4 
 
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 

5 
 
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 

6 
 
"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 

7 
 
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), “V oid 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 
 
1 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. 

8 
 
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), “V oid 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 

Passage view · GavelSight