A Delaware federal magistrate judge said she would not consider unreliable material generated by an AI legal-research tool in a self-represented plaintiff’s brief, then separately recommended summary judgment for the employer. The November 3 report in McCann-Cross v. Coras Wellness and Behavioral Health is a report and recommendation, not a final district-court judgment adopting that result. Donicha McCann-Cross v. Coras Wellness and Behavioral Health, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; Donicha McCann-Cross v. Coras Wellness and Behavioral Health, a Delaware Limited Liability Company
Unverifiable is not the same as nonexistent
The report identified two citations it would not consider: Mitchell v. Crescent Directional Drilling, LP (2015), and Johnson v. Chapel Hill Independent School District (2018). The court said it could not locate cases matching the identifying information supplied. A footnote adds an important qualification: it found a similarly named Fifth Circuit Johnson decision from 1988 but could not verify that this was the case the plaintiff meant to cite, given the stated 2018 date. Donicha McCann-Cross v. Coras Wellness and Behavioral Health, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; Donicha McCann-Cross v. Coras Wellness and Behavioral Health, a Delaware Limited Liability Company
The judge acknowledged the plaintiff’s self-represented status and construed her filings liberally. That did not extend to relying on hallucinated cases or real cases assigned nonexistent or misquoted language. The report also described authority offered for punitive damages as apparently hallucinated, while separately finding no evidence supporting that argument. Donicha McCann-Cross v. Coras Wellness and Behavioral Health, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; Donicha McCann-Cross v. Coras Wellness and Behavioral Health, a Delaware Limited Liability Company
The recommendation did not treat citation problems as an automatic resolution of the lawsuit. It went on to assess the discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims against the summary-judgment record and recommended judgment for the employer. It expressly did not reach the separate question of whether the plaintiff had spoliated evidence. This was not a finding that spoliation occurred. Donicha McCann-Cross v. Coras Wellness and Behavioral Health, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; Donicha McCann-Cross v. Coras Wellness and Behavioral Health, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; Donicha McCann-Cross v. Coras Wellness and Behavioral Health, a Delaware Limited Liability Company
Why the distinction matters
Analysis. The episode illustrates two separate checks for AI-assisted legal work: confirming that an authority exists and confirming that it actually contains the proposition attributed to it. The Johnson footnote also counsels precision when describing a citation failure. An incorrect year and an unresolved intended reference do not justify a reporter independently declaring that every similarly named case is fictitious. Donicha McCann-Cross v. Coras Wellness and Behavioral Health, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; Donicha McCann-Cross v. Coras Wellness and Behavioral Health, a Delaware Limited Liability Company
Scope and status
The report permits specific written objections within fourteen days after service and explains that failing to object can affect later review rights. This article does not establish that the district judge has adopted the recommendation. The underlying briefs, employment evidence and AI prompts or outputs were not independently obtained; descriptions of the citation problems are attributed to the court. CourtListener’s text was extracted using OCR and contains artifacts, so the original response is preserved with that limitation. Public-index searches do not establish complete later docket history. Donicha McCann-Cross v. Coras Wellness and Behavioral Health, a Delaware Limited Liability Company
Sources
Donicha McCann-Cross v. Coras Wellness and Behavioral Health, a Delaware Limited Liability Company. U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. 1:24-cv-01431. Filed 2026-11-03. Unknown.
AI-assisted reporting based on court records retrieved through CourtListener. This analysis is produced by eDiscovery Decoder; it is not reviewed or endorsed by Free Law Project.