WILLIAMS v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
WILLIAMS v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
JAY WILLIAMS a/k/a FAITH ) COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) 1:24-cv-571 v. ) ) DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER This matter is before the court for review of the Order and Recommendation (“Recommendation”) filed on July 16, 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 July 16, 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.
Wine □□□ hun United States District Judge
- 3 -
Reference
- Status
- Unknown