IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:24-cv-00595-BO-KS ) THEODORE WILLIAMS, JR. ) Plaintiff, ) ) V. ) ORDER ) STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ) Defendant. ) ) This matter comes before the Court on the memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) of Magistrate Judge Kimberly Swank [DE 5]. The M&R recommends that Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis be granted, and that his complaint be dismissed for frivolity [DE 5 at 1]. “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). Plaintiff did not file objections to the M&R, and the Court is only required to review the filings and the M&R for clear error. The Court has done so, and found none. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the M&R [DE 5] is ADOPTED IN FULL. The Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [DE 2] is GRANTED, and the complaint is DISMISSED for frivolity. The clerk is DIRECTED to close the case.

SO ORDERED, this day of April 2025.

Tecestge 8 eg T NCE W. BOYLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE