WHITE v. GUILFORD TECHNICAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION, RECOMMENDATION, AND ORDER OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 1/7/2022; that the Application (Docket Entry 1 ) is GRANTED for the sole purpose of entering this Order and Recommendation. FURTHER that the materials filed at Docket Entry 5 shall be STRICKEN from the docket. RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as frivolous. (Sheets, Jamie)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

SABRINA LORRAINE WHITE,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
GUILFORD TECHNICAL
COMMUNITY COLLEGE,
Defendant.

1:21cv368

MEMORANDUM OPINION, RECOMMENDATION, AND ORDER
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This

case

comes

before

the

undersigned

United

States

Magistrate Judge on the Application to Proceed in District Court
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (the “Application”) (Docket Entry
1) filed by Sabrina Lorraine White (the “Plaintiff”) in conjunction
with her

pro

se

Complaint

(Docket

Entry

2)

against

Guilford

Technical Community College (“GTCC” or “Guilford Tech.”).

The

undersigned will grant the Application for the limited purpose of
recommending dismissal of this action due to frivolousness.
RELEVANT STANDARDS
“The federal in forma pauperis statute, first enacted in 1892
[and now codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915], is intended to guarantee
that no citizen shall be denied access to the courts solely because
his poverty makes it impossible for him to pay or secure the
costs.”
Cir.

Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951, 953 (4th

1995)

(en

banc)

(internal

quotation

marks

omitted).

Case 1:21-cv-00368-LCB-LPA Document 6 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 12

“Dispensing

with

problems. . . .

filing

fees,

however,

[i]s

not

without

its

In particular, litigants suing in forma pauperis

d[o] not need to balance the prospects of successfully obtaining
relief against the administrative costs of bringing suit.” Nagy v.
FMC Butner, 376 F.3d 252, 255 (4th Cir. 2004).

To address this

concern, the in forma pauperis statute provides that “the court
shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that
.

.

.

the

action

.

.

.

is

frivolous.”

28

U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
As the United States Supreme Court has observed, “a complaint,
containing

as

it

does

both

factual

allegations

and

legal

conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either
in law or in fact.”

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).

“The word ‘frivolous’ is inherently elastic and not susceptible to
categorical definition. . . .

The term’s capaciousness directs

lower courts to conduct a flexible analysis, in light of the
totality of the circumstances, of all factors bearing upon the
frivolity of a claim.”

Nagy, 376 F.3d at 256–57 (some internal

quotation marks omitted).

The Supreme Court has further explained

that factually frivolous complaints involve “allegations that are
fanciful, fantastic, and delusional.

As those words suggest, a

finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts
alleged

rise

to

the

level

of

the

irrational

or

the

wholly

incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts

2

Case 1:21-cv-00368-LCB-LPA Document 6 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 12

available to contradict them.”

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,

32-33 (1992) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).1

In

determining frivolousness, the Court may “apply common sense.”
Nasim, 64 F.3d at 954.
Moreover, although federal courts must “liberally construe[]”
pro se filings, Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), “[t]he
liberal construction which [courts] are obliged to afford to a pro
se complaint is not without bounds,” Stratton v. Mecklenburg Cnty.
Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 521 F. App’x 278, 290 (4th Cir. 2013).
“Admittedly, pro se complaints represent the work of an untutored
hand requiring special judicial solicitude. Nevertheless, they may
present obscure or extravagant claims defying the most concerted
efforts to unravel them. . . .

[J]udges are not mind readers, and

the principle of liberal construction does not require them to
conjure up questions never presented to them . . . .”

Id. at 290-

91 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

1
Notably, complaints presenting “[c]laims that are
essentially fictitious,” such as ones asserting “‘bizarre
conspiracy
theories,’”
also
merit
dismissal
under
the
substantiality doctrine. Newby v. Obama, 681 F. Supp. 2d 53, 56
(D.D.C. 2010) (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir.
1994)); see also O’Brien v. United States Dep’t of Just., 927 F.
Supp. 382, 385 (D. Ariz. 1995) (“On their face, [the p]laintiff’s
allegations are so bizarre and delusional that they are wholly
insubstantial and cannot invoke this Court’s jurisdiction.”).
3

Case 1:21-cv-00368-LCB-LPA Document 6 Filed 01/07/22 Page 3 of 12

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff purports to bring her claims against Guilford Tech.
under “29 U.S. Code 158a1” (Docket Entry 2 at 3),2 a statutory
provision that prohibits interference with collective bargaining
rights, see 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1); see also 29 U.S.C. § 157.
However, Plaintiff’s Complaint lacks any allegations regarding
collective bargaining.
according

to

(See Docket Entry 2 at 1-28.)

Plaintiff,

Employee/Employer

“this

Relationship,

[case]
but

is

about

not

Moreover,
about

Guilford

an

Tech.[]

willingly and willfully placing [certain] people around [her]
. . ., and they ran [her] from [her] apartment[ and] hotel and
eventually caus[ed] a potential ‘Black Lives Matter’ situation for
[her].”

(Id. at 22.)

As such, Plaintiff’s Complaint represents a

continuation of claims that she brought in 2019, which this Court
dismissed on frivolousness grounds, a ruling that the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

See White v.

Guilford Tech. Cmty. Coll., No. 1:19cv135, 2019 WL 11660603, at *4
(M.D.N.C. May 2, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, No.
1:19cv135, 2019 WL 11660604 (M.D.N.C. May 20, 2019), aff’d, 780 F.
App’x 83 (4th Cir. 2019).
More specifically, the Complaint asserts, inter alia:
Since I filed harassment at Guilford Tech[.] (please
see file from Guilford Tech[.] and previous lawsuit in

2 Docket Entry page citations utilize the CM/ECF footer’s
pagination.
4

Case 1:21-cv-00368-LCB-LPA Document 6 Filed 01/07/22 Page 4 of 12

U.S. District Court #19cv00135, which I sent to U.S.
Court of Appeals[)], and was forced out of my apartment
because when I filed harassment at Guilford Tech.,
immediately after the guy turned and married a Fonda
Nelson from my home church in High Point, NC, Gethsemane
Baptist Church, and the Church had originally thought I
did wrong in the 1990’s and now another girl is to blame
for that, but when he married her, he brought the church
and the black community against me; I called Guilford
Tech.[] to let them know what was going on, and
immediately Day’Quan L. Davis appeared around me (please
see his student ID from Guilford Tech.[] and pictures of
him stalking and cyberstalking at my car); Day’Quan was
in the Weaver’s House around me (and I was staying there
because my family goes to Gethsemane Baptist Church where
Samuel Terry (the guy I filed harassment against) stalked
and cyberstalked and married Fonda Nelson from Gethsemane
Baptist Church herself, and my family goes to that
church, so I have been forced to be homeless (and I want
to be paid for this)[)], and I subpo[en]aed employment
information on Samuel Terry, and Guilford Tech.[] sent
the subpoenaed information to me at the Weaver’s House,
and then Day’Quan L. Davis appeared, and when I moved to
3700—L Flint Street, he moved to 3700-M Flint St.,
staying right up under me, and I heard someone say
Day’Quan goes to Guilford Tech., so I asked Day’Quan for
a copy of his student ID (please see student ID from
Guilford Tech.[]) and got a copy of his student ID and
pictures of him and a Christal McLaughlin looking boy
from Human Resources at Guilford Tech.[] stalking and
cyberstalking at my car (please see pictures of them at
my car), and I have complained to the police that I am
being stalked, cyberstalked and watched, and I got scared
and fled my apartment, and made it to Concord and in my
hotel in the Hilton, I had to call the police, and the
next day please see pictures of a Beverly Nipper looking
woman from Human Resources[3] in the Hilton (she was in
Room 204, and I was in Room 206, and I had to go get a
picture of her because they were trying to get into the
adjo[i]ning door in my room, and when I returned I
noticed my television said Room 208 (please see pictures

3 The Complaint’s exhibits contain a 2017 letter to Plaintiff
from Beverly Nipper, GTCC Human Resources Department Employee
Relations Manager, specifying, apparently in response to a subpoena
from Plaintiff, the dates of “Samual” Terry’s GTCC employment,
which ended in 2012. (Docket Entry 2-1 at 182.)
5

Case 1:21-cv-00368-LCB-LPA Document 6 Filed 01/07/22 Page 5 of 12

of television with Robin Robinson on the television, and
again I was in room 206, but now my television said Room
208, and again I am complaining to the police of being
stalked, cyberstalked and at this point definitely
watched, and I called the police, (but not all police
departments give 911 records in the form my 911 records
are turned in to U.S. District Court — please see my 911
reports), and I had to leave the Hilton with nowhere to
go, and the police said go back to Guilford Tech.[] and
get my job back, but they had banned me (please see
document of ban from their attorney Patrick Kane[4]), so
again I am homeless because of them, so I went back to
High Point where my family was, (but I couldn’t stay with
them because they go to Gethsemane where Samuel Terry
stalked and cyberstalked and married Fonda Nelson after
I filed harassment against him), and so now that I am
back in High Point after all my homeless stays because of
them now, I have taken pictures of Guilford Tech.’s[]
cars (police) cars all around me (please see pictures of
Guilford Tech.’s[] police cars), and then the High Point
Police Department came behind me and ran my license
plate, and my Driver’s [L]icenses were cancelled —
suspended, and the police came to my car, and told me (I
was staying in the Sheetz’s parking lot on Hwy 68 in High
Point . . .[)], and it could have been another [B]lack
[L]ives [M]atter situation, and the white police officer
left, and said he was not going to give me a ticket, and
now I know it is Guilford Tech.[] doing all of this stuff
to me, and it scares me how far they would not [sic] go,
and they almost got me killed by the High Point Police
Department, and they put Day’Quan L. Davis around me
after they sent me the subpoenaed information to the
Weaver’s House where I was staying at that time (please
see subpoenaed document again and the address Beverly
Nipper sent it to[]), and Day’Quan stalked and
cyberstalked me, and I got pictures of him at my car
(please see again the pictures of Day’Quan L. Davis at my

4 The Complaint’s exhibits contain an August 2020 cease and
desist letter addressed to Plaintiff from Kane, on behalf of GTCC
(see Docket Entry 2-1 at 186-87), stating that, “[o]ver the last
month[, Plaintiff] ha[s] been sending repeated communications by
way of email and phone calls to GTCC employees and staff, and ha[s]
made numerous trips to the GTCC campus without any legitimate
purpose,” including to demand that “GTCC pay a bill that
[Plaintiff] apparently incurred for a stay at Grandover Hotel,”
which “behavior must stop” (id. at 186).
6

Case 1:21-cv-00368-LCB-LPA Document 6 Filed 01/07/22 Page 6 of 12

car, and even his student ID from Guilford Tech., and he
was living right up under me, and had been there for
three (3) years for them, and I want to be paid for all
of these things because they ran me from my apartment
(please see 911 reports about this), and NOW I have even
had to call the police (see current 911 calls too) at my
current address . . ., and I have a new address because
I transferred the HUD because [of medical reasons] and I
called the police because my bankcard was being used at
the new address and I had to cancel the bankcard, and
this is proof that they are cyberstalking me and to this
day, and even see the flunked out Ph.D and the letter to
Walden I had to send,[5] and now that I have the proof I
am flunked out of a ph.d program, I requested Corporal
Johnson in Greensboro to arrest them, and even in the new
HUD apartment I had to take . . . I am Violence Against
Women (VAWA) Act because of Day’Quan stalking and
cyberstalking me at my car (please see VAWA document in
Reference to stalking) . . . .
(Docket Entry 2 at 5-13 (emphasis and formatting in original)
(“Statement of Claim (#1)” headings omitted).)
The Complaint continues:
I also want to claim that on 04/23/2019, Guilford
Tech[.] willingly and willfully (since I have filed
harassment against Samuel Terry at Guilford Tech., and
since I notified them in 2017 that I was being stalked
and cyberstalked (and harassed) even further that
Guilford Tech.[] willingly and willfully entered Moses
Cone Hospital cyberstalked and switched my MRI for
another (black girl) — Tameka N. Watlington (please see
her medical discharge paperwork that I was given that
night, and please see mine — dated also 04/23/2019, and
also see . . . the discharge paperwork in my name, which
was printed and given to me on 05/15/2019 when I realized
I had received the wrong medical discharge paperwork, and
also when I knew for sure the MRI’s had been switched,

5 The exhibits contain a November 2020 letter from Plaintiff
to Walden University, copying the High Point Police Department,
requesting that Walden University pursue criminal charges against
various individuals, including Samuel Terry, related to Plaintiff’s
cyberstalking and harassment allegations. (See Docket Entry 2-1 at
174-77.)
7

Case 1:21-cv-00368-LCB-LPA Document 6 Filed 01/07/22 Page 7 of 12

and Ollieman at the Greensboro Police Station told me all
cyberstalking
goes
on
the
Federal
Bureau
of
Investigations website, so I placed it there, but to[]
this date I cannot get the correct medical treatment and
information . . ., and I want them to pay for it, and
look at all the medical bills and the refusal for credit
for an apartment, and now see the document of all the
jobs they have even helped Samuel Terry who I filed
harassment against at Guilford Tech.[] take from me.
— Guilford Tech.[] is doing all of this stuff to me
and since I filed harassment, and I know that since
04/23/2019 when my MRI got switched and when I also ended
up with the wrong discharge paperwork for the MRI, and
and [sic] U.S. District Court please also see an
Amendment for Health Information I had to fill out
stating that I am not a schizophrenic, but that I filed
harassment at Guilford Tech., and I have been labeled as
a schizophrenic, which is why there is a delay in getting
my Driver’s [L]icenses back, and I do not want another
Black Lives Matter situation since I filed harassment at
Guilford Tech., and since I received the wrong medical
discharge paperwork for a[n] MRI, and since notifying
Guilford Tech.[] in 2017 at least that I was being
harassed, and stalked, and cyberstalk[ed] further (see
again the images of Day’Quan L. Davis at my car and his
student ID from Guilford Tech[.]
— they have stalked and harassed and cyberstalked me
further until they have even pushed me from my apartment
and almost got me killed by the High Point Police
Department and I want them to pay!!!
(Id.

at

13-18

omitted).)

(emphasis

in

original)

(columns

and

headings

Specifically, Plaintiff wants GTCC to pay nearly $1

billion in damages (see id. at 27), including $100 million for
obliging her to “handwrit[e] this [Complaint]” (id. at 21).
Along with various employment records from GTCC (see, e.g.,
Docket Entry 2-1 at 3-82), Plaintiff provided as exhibits to her
Complaint, inter alia, nearly 90 pages of call records from the
High Point Police Department and Guilford Metro 911 (see id. at 838

Case 1:21-cv-00368-LCB-LPA Document 6 Filed 01/07/22 Page 8 of 12

170).6

These call logs detail Plaintiff’s allegations regarding

cyberstalking and harassing by, among others, GTCC, Samuel Terry,
and Day’Quan.

(See, e.g., id. at 106 (reflecting that Plaintiff

“continues to get banned from restaurants and thinks [someone] from
GTCC High Point is the cause[] of it,” as well as that someone
“from GTCC has been filming her everywhere she goes and posting it
on Internet”), 116 (Plaintiff “spoke of two way audio/visual system
being used on her from a fight over men with other women from
church” and indicated that this harassment “has been an ongoing
issue for 10 years and [she] would like to speak to an office[r] as
now

she

has

more

evidence

because

a

2-way

audio/visual

communication system is being used”), 121 (“[Plaintiff] requested
that we forward the information to FBI and CIA and advised us about
all the strange coincidences of navy blue Nissan Maximas that she
sees that are somehow connected to Sam Terry and his stepson
.

.

.

.”),

137

(discussing

MRI

and

wrong

discharge

paper

allegations and indicating that Plaintiff “feels she is being
extremely cyberstalked”), 157 (indicating that Plaintiff wants
officer to walk through “her apartment to check if they can ‘detect
any cameras’ that the HR Department and a DeQuan Subj[ect] from
GTCC may have put there” and “also wants to show [officers] the
DeQuan Subj[ect]’s student ID from GTCC in regards to a former

6 For legibility reasons, this Opinion utilizes standardized
spelling and capitalization in all quotations from these records.
9

Case 1:21-cv-00368-LCB-LPA Document 6 Filed 01/07/22 Page 9 of 12

harassment she took out on the Subj[ect] through GTCC” and “also
mention[ed] poss[ibly] having cyberware on her body from someone
brushing up against her?”), 164 (“[Plaintiff] feels Mr. Terry is
sending messages to her and ‘cyberstalking’ her by having people
that resemble old coworkers/family show up to areas she is in.”).)
In addition to providing thorough summaries of Plaintiff’s core
allegations (see, e.g., id. at 149, 164), the call logs elaborate
upon Plaintiff’s cyberstalking claims, including that Plaintiff
made repeated allegations to police “of people installing cameras
and listening devices in her apartment and assaulting her remotely,
possibly by a chip that they secretly installed into her body” (id.
at 120); that she reported seeing “the weather man on the TV saying
things that she has reported to the FBI,” which she deemed evidence
of cyberstalking by Samuel Terry (id. at 130; see also id. at 133
(indicating that Plaintiff reported “the weather man on tv saying
things that only she knows and wrote down”)); and that she “[was]
rambling about how she died magically from chicken pox and someone
using cyberware to get information” (id. at 158).
Plaintiff

also

filed

a

supplement,

requesting

“to

documents in reference to [her] present state of being.”
Entry 4 at 1.)

enter

(Docket

The supplement discusses certain health challenges

that Plaintiff has experienced (see id. at 1-2) and then states,
“please see my current bank statement, and Samuel Terry, the guy I
filed harassment at [GTCC,] and others helping him now, took money

10

Case 1:21-cv-00368-LCB-LPA Document 6 Filed 01/07/22 Page 10 of 12

out of my account and I know this because when I take the balance
of $79.95 and add back in my debits, by the time I go back up and
add in all the way up to $38.00, my balance on the calculator is
not the same as what is on the statement” (id. at 2-3).
As the foregoing recitation makes clear, Plaintiff’s claims
qualify as “fanciful, fantastic, and delusional,” Denton, 504 U.S.
at 33 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
liberally

construed,

Plaintiff

seeks

damages

for

Even

“clearly

fictitious factual claims,” Stratton, 521 F. App’x at 289, best
described as “bizarre and delusional,” O’Brien v. United States
Dep’t of Just., 927 F. Supp. 382, 385 (D. Ariz. 1995), and
“ris[ing]

to

the

level

of

the

irrational

incredible,” Denton, 504 U.S. at 33.
dismiss

Plaintiff’s

Complaint

[and]

the

wholly

The Court should therefore
pursuant

to

28

U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).7
CONCLUSION
This action fails as frivolous.

7 Plaintiff submitted certain bank and medical records in
connection with her supplement, which the Clerk placed under
temporary seal given their sensitivity. (See Docket Entry 5.) In
light of the recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, and
the irrelevance of these documents to that determination, the Court
will strike these documents from the docket.
See M.D.N.C. LR
5.4(a)(3) (“Sealed documents should not be filed unless necessary
for determination of the matter before the Court.”); M.D.N.C. LR
83.4(a)(3) (specifying that Court may strike materials if party
fails to comply with Local Rules).
11

Case 1:21-cv-00368-LCB-LPA Document 6 Filed 01/07/22 Page 11 of 12

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Application (Docket Entry 1)
is

GRANTED

for

the

sole

purpose

of

entering

this

Order

and

Recommendation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the materials filed at Docket Entry
5 shall be STRICKEN from the docket.
IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as frivolous.
This 7th day of January, 2022.
/s/ L. Patrick Auld
L. Patrick Auld
United States Magistrate Judge

12

Case 1:21-cv-00368-LCB-LPA Document 6 Filed 01/07/22 Page 12 of 12