Vaughan v. Romm ( 2022 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT } FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ~- NORTHERN DIVISION No. 2:21-CV-42-D . SUSAN W. VAUGHAN, ) . ) Plaintiff, ) ) Vv. ) ‘ORDER ) KATHLYN S. ROMM, ) RAY MATUSKO, © ) COURTNEY HALL, ) _ MEADER W. HARRIS, III, ) and DEPUTY CLERK DOE, Defendants. ) On September 27, 2021, defendant, appearing pro se, filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis [D.E. 1]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank for a memorandum and recommendation on the plaintiff s:motion to proceed in forma pauperis and for a frivolity review [D.E. 4]. On June 7, 2022, Magistrate Judge Swank granted plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, issued a Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”), and recommended that the complaint be dismissed as frivolous for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See [D.E. “The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge’s report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (cleaned up); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Absent a timely objection, “a district court need . not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”. Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315 (quotation omitted). If a party makes only general objections, de novo review is not required. See Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1997). In “order to preserve for appeal an issue ina _ Inagistrate fodeeie — a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity SO as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection.” Martin v. Duly, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted); see United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007)... The court has reviewed the M&R, the record, and plaintiff's objections. As for those portions of the M&R to which plaintiff made no objection, the court is satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the ord As for the objections, the court has reviewed the objections and the M&R de novo. The complaint is frivolous, and her objections = overruled. □ In sum, plaintif?’s objections to the M&R [D.E. 8] are OVERRULED and the court DISMISSES plaintif?’s complaint as frivolous for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The clerk shall close the case. _ . SO ORDERED. This 27 day of June, 2022. \ J S C. DEVER Il □ United States District Judge . . \ □ . 2 -