Houston v. United States ( 2024 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION NO. 7:23-CV-1626-BO LEONARD W. HOUSTON, ) Plaintiff, ORDER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. This cause comes before the Court on the memorandum and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II. [DE 5]. Plaintiff, who proceeds pro se, has failed to file any objections to the memorandum and recommendation, and the time for doing so has expired. In this posture, the matter is ripe for disposition. A district court is required to review de novo those portions of a memorandum and recommendation (M&R) to which a party timely files specific objections or where there is plain error. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct 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 v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation and citation omitted). . Plaintiff has not objected to the M&R and the time for doing so has passed. The Court has reviewed the M&R and is satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the M&R is ADOPTED. The court dismisses this action as duplicative and instructs Houston to proceed in his earlier filed case. See Houston v. United States, No. 7:23-CV-01202- BO (E.D.N.C. filed Aug. 2, 2023). CONCLUSION The memorandum and recommendation [DE 5] is ADOPTED in full. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed as duplicative. SO ORDERED, this p day of January, 2024. TERRENCE W. BOYLE i UNITED STATES DISTRICT GE 20