Allen v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( 2023 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:22-CV-464-D DERRICK ALLEN, ) . . Plaintiff, ve ‘ORDER EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, et al., ) Defendants. On November 14, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis [D.E. 1] and a proposed complaint [D.E. 1-1]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II fora memorandum and recommendation on the plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis and for a frivolity review [D.E. 7]. On January 23, 2023, Magistrate Judge Numbers issued a Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) and recommended that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim. See [D.E. 8]. “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) (ieened 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). Ifa party makes only general objections, de novo review is not required. See Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F3d 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). . Plaintiff did not object to the M&R. Therefore, the court reviews for clear error. The court has reviewed the M&R and the record. There is no clear error on the face of the record. See Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315. In sum, the court has reviewed the record and ADOPTS the conclusions in the M&R [D.E. 8], GRANTS plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis [D.E. 1], and DISMISSES WITH □ PREJUDICE plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a claim [D.E. 1-1]. The clerk shall close the case. SO ORDERED. This 13 day of February, 2023. times — United States District Judge \