Dublin v. Early Warning Services LLC
Dublin v. Early Warning Services LLC
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:24-CV-717-BO-KS
JORDAN DUBLIN, ) Plaintiff, ) v. ORDER EARLY WARNING SERVICES LLC, Defendant. )
This cause comes before the Court on the memorandum and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank. [DE 12]. Plaintiff, who proceeds in this action pro se, has failed to respond to the memorandum and recommendation (M&R), and the time for doing so has expired. “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.,
416 F.3d 310, 315(4th Cir. 2005) (cleaned up) (emphasis omitted); see also
28 U.S.C. § 636(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,
478 F.3d 616, 622(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,
66 F.4th 454, 460-61(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,
288 F. Supp. 3d 654, 662(D.S.C. 2017). On clear error review, the court has no obligation to
explain its reasoning for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis,
718 F.2d 198, 200(4th Cir. 1983). The M&R recommends that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. As no objection has been filed, the Court reviews the M&R for clear error and finds none. The M&R is therefore adopted in its entirety. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the M&R is ADOPTED. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [DE 2] is DENIED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay the filing fee not later than April 25, 2025. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action.
SO ORDERED, this {day of April 2025.
deed ae TERRENCE W. BOYLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Reference
- Status
- Unknown