Reaves v. Faulkner ( 2023 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION NO. 7:22-CV-040-FL KATHY JUANITA REAVES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ANGELA FAULKNER, FREDDIE ) WILLIAMSON, MICHAEL MIKE ) SMITH, BRENDA FAIRLEY-FEREBEE, ) HERMAN LOCKLEAR, DEMETRIA ) GRISSETT, ATKINS TREY MICHAEL, ) PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF ROBESON ) COUNTY, PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF ) ORDER ROBESON COUNTY BOARD OF ) EDUCATION, CATHERINE TRUITT, ) ROY COOPER, PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF ) NORTH CAROLINA, NORTH ) CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ) INSTRUCTION, NORTH CAROLINA ) STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, and ) STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) This matter is before the court for review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint (DE 1-1, 12) 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) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), wherein it is recommended plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed. (DE 11). 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. Upon careful review of the M&R, 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). Because no objections have been filed, the court reviews the magistrate judge’s findings anc conclusions only for clear error, and need not give any explanation for adoptin the M&R. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). Here, the magistrate judge recommends dismissal of plaintiffs claims where the statutes under which she purports to sue do not provide a private right of action, she improperly attempts to bring claims on behalf of others pro se, and she fails to state a claim. Upon careful review of the M&R, the court finds the magistrate judge’s analysis to be thorough, and there is no clear error. The court therefore ADOPTS the recommendation of the recommendation of the magistrate judge as its own. For the reasons stated therein, plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. SO ORDERED, this the 23rd day of March, 2023. United States District Judge