IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION . No. 7:23-CV-931-D

WILLIAMD. WOOLENS, ) Plaintiff, V. ORDER BRIAN MANSFIELD, and GOOD SHEPHERD CENTER, +) Defendants. ;

On May 2, 2023, plaintiff filed a complaint [D.E.1] and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis [D.E. 2]. Pursuant to

(b)(1), the court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II for a memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) on the plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis and for a frivolity review [D.E. 5]. On May 15, 2023, Magistrate Judge Numbers issued an M&R and recommended that the complaint be dismissed for

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See [D.E. 7]. “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.,

(4th Cir. 2005) (cleaned up); see

(b). Absent a timely objection, “a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error oa the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond,

(quotation omitted). If a party makes only general objections, de novo review is not required. See Wells v. Shriners Hosp.,

(4th Cir. 1997). In “order to preserve for appeal an issue in a

magistrate judge’s report, a party oat object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection.” Martin v. Duffy,

(4th Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted); see United States v. Midgette,

(4th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff did not object to the M&R. Therefore, the court reviews for clear error. The court has reviewed the M&R and the record. There is no clear error on the face of the record. See Diamond,

. In sum, the court has reviewed the record and ADOPTS the conclusions in the M&R [D.E. GRANTS plaintiff s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [D.E. 2], and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction [D.E. 1]. The clerk shall close the case. SO ORDERED. This 19 day of July, 2023.

en N arr J S C. DEVER II United States District Judge