Bullock v. Creedmoore North Carolina Police Department ( 2020 )

. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:20-CV-96-D DORA P. BULLOCK, ) Plaintiff, v. ORDER CREEDMOOR NORTH CAROLINA POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., ) Defendants, On March 12, 2020, Dora P. Bullock (“Bullock” or “plaintiff’), appearing pro se, filed a complaint [D.E. 1]. On April 1, 2020, defendants City of Creedmoor and Officer Robert P. □□□□ moved to dismiss and filed a memorandum in support [D.E. 6, 7]. On April 21, 2020, Bullock moved for entry of default [D.E. 9] and filed a memorandum of law in opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss [D.E. 10]. On May 14, 2020, defendants moved to dismiss [D.E. 20] and filed a supporting memorandum [D.E. 21]. On July 1, 2020, the court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Numbers for a memorandum and recommendation regarding the motions to dismiss [D.E. 6, 20] and the motion for entry of default [D.E. 9]. See [D.E. 25]. On October 13, 2020, Magistrate Judge Numbers issued a memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) and recommended that the □ court deny Bullock’s motion for entry of default [D.E. 9] and grant defendants’ motions to dismiss [D.E. 6,20]. See [D.E. 26]. No party filed objections. “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) (alteration, emphasis, and quotation omitted); 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 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 court has reviewed the M&R and the entire record, and is satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315. Thus, the court adopts the conclusions in the M&R. In sum, the court ADOPTS the conclusions in the M&R [D.E. 26], DENIES as meritless plaintiff's motion for entry of default [D.E. 9], and GRANTS defendants’ motions to dismiss [D.E. 6, 20]. The clerk shall close the case. SO ORDERED. This 24% day of December 2020. United States District Judge □ 2