Davis v. Putin ( 2021 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION NO. 5:21-CV-292-FL ANDREW C. DAVIS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) VLADIMIR PUTIN and ROSATOM ) CORPORATION, ) ) Defendants. ) This matter is before the court for review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint (DE 1, 3), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr., entered memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), wherein it is recommended that the court dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. (DE 7). Plaintiff did not file objections to the M&R, and the time within which to make any objection has expired. In this posture, the issues raised are ripe for ruling. For the following reasons, the court adopts the M&R, and dismisses plaintiff’s complaint. Absent a specific and timely filed objection, the court reviews only for “clear error,” and need not give any explanation for adopting the M&R. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir.1983). Upon careful review of the record, “the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court may dismiss an action that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. The magistrate judge recommends dismissal of plaintiffs action on the ground that plaintiff's complaint fails to state a plausible claim for relief. Upon careful review of the M&R and the record in this case, the court finds the magistrate judge’s analysis to be thorough, and there is no clear error. Plaintiff's allegations that he observed Rosatom Corporation, a Russian corporation, manufacturing a “chromodynamic weapon,” (Compl. (DE 1) at 1), fails to provide sufficient factual support to state a plausible claim for relief related to climate change. The court thus adopts the M&R as its own. In sum, plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The clerk is DIRECTED to close the case. SO ORDERED, this the 13th day of December, 2021. (Mew 0. Lhereggr LOUISE W. FLANAGAN United States District Judge