WILLIAMS v. AULD

District Court, M.D. North Carolina

WILLIAMS v. AULD

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

JAY WILLIAMS ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:24-cv-503 ) L. PATRICK AULD, ) and DOES, ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER This matter is before the court for review of the Order and Recommendation (“Recommendation”) filed on June 25, 2024, by the United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b). (Doc. 2.) The Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed, but without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a new complaint, on the proper forms and in the proper district, which corrects the defects of the present Complaint. The Recommendation was served on the parties to this action on June 25, 2024. (Doc. 3). Plaintiff filed timely a pleading entitled “Notice Memorandum,” which the court construes as objections to the Recommendation. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff’s notice is not a proper objection and does not respond to the Recommendation filed in this case. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s conclusory complaints about the Magistrate Judge are patently frivolous. As a result, Plaintiff’s notice is a general objection and insufficient to require this court to conduct a de novo review. See Elijah v. Dunbar,

66 F.4th 454, 460

(4th Cir. 2023). Nevertheless, this court has made “a de novo determination of those portions of the [Magistrate Judge’s] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1). This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the [M]agistrate [J]udge. . . . [O]r

recommit the matter to the [M]agistrate [J]udge with instructions.”

Id.

This court has appropriately reviewed the portions of the Recommendation to which objections were made and has made a de novo determination which is in accord with the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation. This court therefore adopts the Recommendation. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, (Doc. 2), is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff filing a new complaint, on the proper forms and in the proper district, which corrects the defects cited in the

Recommendation.

- 2 - A Judgment dismissing this action will be entered contemporaneously with this Order. This the 7th day of November, 2024.

‘ . WUtinu. L. (6 . United States District Jvidge

- 3 -

Reference

Status
Unknown