Keister v. Wake County District Attorney Office ( 2024 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:23-CV-571-BO FRANCIS KEISTER, ) ) Plaintiff. ) Vv. ) ) ORDER WAKE COUNTY DISTRICT ) ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. ET AL., ) ) Defendant. ) This matter is before the Court on the Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II. [DE 19]. On February 22, 2024, Judge Numbers issued an M&R recommending that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without prejudice. [DE 19]. Following three extension requests, plaintiff filed a general objection to the M&R on May 28, 2024. [DE 26]. The matter is now ripe for ruling. “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) (cleaned up) (emphasis omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1): Fed R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). From this axiom, however, springs the corollary that not every objection warrants de novo review. Indeed, “[t]o trigger de novo review, an objecting 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 grounds for the objection.”” Elijah v. Dunbar, 66 F.4th 454, 460 (4th Cir. 2023) (quoting United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007)). In cases where a litigant raises general objections, “the district court reviews the magistrate’s recommendation for clear error only.” /d. However, when determining whether an objection is either specific or general, courts must remain “mindful of [their] responsibility to construe pro se filing liberally.” Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017). In the instant case, plaintiff filed a single, general objection to the entire M&R. [DE 26]. And even when construed liberally, plaintiff's sole, general objection lacks the specificity required to trigger de novo review. [DE 26]. See Martin, 858 F.3d at 245. As a result, the Court will review the magistrate judge’s M&R for clear error. Elijah, 66 F.4th at 460. Having considered both the magistrate judge’s M&R and the record in the instant matter, the Court finds no clear error on the face of the record. [DE 1, 19. 26]. As such, the Court adopts the M&R’s conclusion that plaintiff's federal claims be dismissed. [DE 19]. The Court also adopts the M&R’s conclusion that plaintiff’ s state law claims be dismissed for failure to plead a claim in accordance with Rule 8(a)(2). [DE 19]. See Fed. R. Civ. P. R. 8(a)(2). In conclusion, the Court ORDERS that the magistrate judge's M&R [DE 19] is ADOPTED, and plaintiff's complaint [DE |] is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close this case. SO ORDERED, this D Yuay of July 2024. & UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE