IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DIVISION No. 4:20-CV-38-BO _ TIMOTHY D. BEST, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ORDER ) VILLAGE OF ELLENVILLE AND ) ELLENVILLE JUSTICE COURT; ) ULSTER COUNTY AND | ULSTER COUNTY JAIL AND THEIR _) EMPLOYEE; CONTRACTOR PRIME ) CARE MEDICAL OF NEW YORK, INC.) AND THEIR EMPLOYEE, ) ) Defendants. )

This cause comes before the Court on the memorandum and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II allowing plaintiff to proceed without prepayment of fees and recommending that this action be dismissed. [DE 6]. No objections to the memorandum and recommendation have been filed. For the reasons that follow, the memorandum and recommendation (M&R) is ADOPTED and this action is DISMISSED. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, who proceeds in this action pro se, alleges in his complaint that from September 5, 2019, to February 11, 2020, he was unlawfully incarcerated and subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff alleges that he did not waive his right to counsel at his arraignment nor was he asked if he wanted to adjourn his case so that he could have counsel present. Plaintiff alleges that while incarcerated at the Ulster County Jail he was diagnosed with an ear infection by defendant Prime Care Medical but that he was given the wrong treatment, causing his condition to

worsen. Plaintiff alleges that his Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated and seeks $32,000 in actual damages and $1,000,000 for pain and suffering. DISCUSSION A district court is required to review de novo those portions of an M&R to which a party timely files specific objections or where there is plain error.

(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn,

(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 vy. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Here, plaintiff has not filed any objections to any portion of the M&R. 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.

. CONCLUSION The memorandum and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Numbers [DE 6] is ADOPTED and plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED. The clerk is DIRECTED to close the case.

SO ORDERED, this LY day of May, 2020.

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE