IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION Case No. 7:21-cv-00104-M

STANLEY LORENZO WILLIAMS, ) Plaintiff, V. ORDER THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, etal., ) ) Defendants. ) This matter comes before the court on the memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. [DE 6] with respect to the initial screening of the Complaint pursuant to

. Pursuant to

(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), Magistrate Judge Jones recommerids that this court dismiss the Complaint as frivolous. Plaintiff timely filed an objection to the M&R as to “its entirety” [DE 8]. A magistrate judge’s recommendation carries no presumptive weight. The court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the . .. recommendation| ] . . . receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”

(b)(1); accord Mathews v. Weber,

(1976). The court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Jd. § 636(b)(1). “However, the district court need not conduct de novo review when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations.” Norris v. South Carolina,

, 172 (4th Cir. 2001) (unpublished) (citing Orpiano v. Johnson,

, 47-48 (4th Cir. 1982)). Absent a specific and timely objection, the court reviews only for “clear error” and

need not give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005). Even under the standards of liberal construction afforded to pro se filings, Plaintiff's objection does not identify any specific error in the M&R. Rather, Plaintiff objects to the M&R “in its entirety.” DE 8 at 1. Plaintiff explains that the M&R has “‘fail[ed] to comply with the guidelines” and that he never would have consented to “Bad Law.” /d. at 1-2. Plaintiff does not include any argument about the M&R’s findings. De novo review, therefore, is unnecessary. Upon careful review of the M&R and the record presented, and finding no clear error, the court ADOPTS the recommendation of the magistrate judge as its own. For the reasons stated therein, the Complaint is DISMISSED [DE 7]. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

SO ORDERED this oa day of November, 2022.

eects Pa iene RICHARD E. MYERS II CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE