IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION No. 7:25-CV-219-BO

LEONARD WILLIAM HOUSTON, ) Plaintiff, ) V. ORDER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, □ Defendant. )

This cause comes before the Court on the memorandum and recommendation (M&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II. [DE 5]. Plaintiff has responded, [DE 6], and the matter is ripe for disposition. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, filed a short form complaint on January 13, 2025, alleging a claim against the United States under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA). Magistrate Judge Numbers granted plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, but has recommended that this case be dismissed as duplicative of an earlier filed complaint by plaintiff. See Houston v. United States, No. 7:23-CV-1202-BO (E.D.N.C.). Plaintiff has responded to the M&R, indicating that he accepts, without objection, the magistrate judge’s recommendation. DISCUSSION “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) (emphasis omitted); see also

(b)(1); Fed R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A party’s objections must be made “with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert

the district court of the true ground for the objection.” United States v. Midgette,

(4th Cir. 2007). “[W]hen reviewing pro se objections to a magistrate’s recommendation, district courts must review de novo any articulated grounds to which the litigant appears to take issue.” Elijah v. Dunbar,

(4th Cir. 2023). Where no specific objections have been filed, the court reviews for clear error only. Dunlap v. TM Trucking of the Carolinas, LLC,

(D.S.C. 2017). On clear error review, the court has no obligation to explain its reasoning for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis,

(4th Cir. 1983). Because plaintiff has not objected to the M&R, the Court reviews it only for clear error. Having discerned no clear error, the recommendation of the magistrate judge is adopted. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the memorandum and recommendation [DE 5] is ADOPTED. The complaint is DISMISSED as duplicative. The clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.

SO ORDERED, this (9 day of March 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE