IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:21-CV-413 LORENZO RICHARDSON, ) Plaintiff, ) V. ORDER RAUL LOPEZ, JOHN DOE 1, and JOHN DOE 2, ) Defendants. ) This cause comes before the Court on the memorandum and recommendation ("M&R") of Magistrate Judge Brian S. Meyers [DE 8], plaintiff's motions for summary judgement [DE 4, 5, 6], and plaintiff's motion to expedite relief [DE 7]. For the reasons that follow, the M&R is adopted and plaintiff's motions are denied. 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.

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

(4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Plaintiff has filed an objection to the M&R, but has not raised substantive arguments of fact or law that legitimately challenge the M&R. Instead, plaintiff restates the factual basis already raised in plarntiff's previous filings. Plaintiff does not contend that the magsistrate judge applied the wrong law, misapplied the law, or applied the wrong facts to the law. Accordingly, the Court

ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. The case is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, plaintiffs motions [DE 4, 5, 6, 7] are DENIED.

SO ORDERED, this _/ A day of August, 2022.

TERRENCE W. BOYLE ] UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE