FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DIVISION NO. 4:19-CV-120-FL MAURICE EDWARD THOMPSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) WENDY HAZELTON, ) ORDER ) Defendant. ) This matter is before the court on the Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II, regarding plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and frivolity review of plaintiff’s complaint. (DE 4). Plaintiff filed objection to the M&R on September 19, 2019. As such, this matter is ripe for ruling. The district court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge’s M&R to which specific objections are filed.

(b). Absent a specific and timely filed objection, the court reviews only for “clear error,” and need not give any explanation for adopting the M&R. Camby v. Davis,

(4th Cir. 1983). In this case,the court holds the magistrate judge correctly determined that plaintiff has demonstrated appropriate evidence of inability to pay the required court costs, but that the complaint fails to state a claim and is frivolous. As explained by the magistrate judge, plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed due to defendant’s absolute judicial immunity. See Chu v. Griffith,

(4th Cir. 1985); Stump v. Sparkman,

, 355–56 (1978). Thus, upon de novo review of the M&R and plaintiff’s objections, the court ADOPTS the M&R, GRANTS the application to proceed in forma pauperis, and DISMISSES the complaint pursuant to

(e)(2). The clerk is DIRECTED to close the case. SO ORDERED, this the 23rd day of September, 2019.

( Api W. ELANASAN nited States District Judge