Best v. Town of Ayden, N.C. ( 2023 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DIVISION No. 4:22-CV-145-D TIMOTHY BEST, ) Plaintiff, v. ORDER TOWN OF AYDEN, and . AYDEN POLICE DEPARTMENT, ) Defendants. On November 29, 2022, plaintiff, 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 Robert B. J ones, Jr. for a memorandum and recommendation on the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and for a frivolity review [D.E. 4]. On January 12, 2023, Magistrate Judge Jones granted plaintiffs 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. 5]. On January 17, 2023, plaintiff objected to the M&R [D.E. 6]. “The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge’s report ot 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 clearerroronthe — 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 in a magistrate judge’s report, 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. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted); see United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007). The a 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 record. As for the objections, the court has reviewed the objections and the M&R de novo. The complaint is frivolous, and plaintifP S objections are overruled. In sum, plaintiff's objections to the M&R [D.E. 6] are OVERRULED and the court DISMIS SES plaintiffs complaint as frivolous for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The clerk shall close the case. SO ORDERED. This 2° day of January, 2023. United States District Judge >