IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:25-cv-00149-BO-BM ) WESLEY LEON BETHEA, ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) ORDER ) T. BISSETTE, CITY OF WILSON, ) BENNY BOYKIN, and CALVIN ) WOODARD, ) Defendants. ) ) This matter comes before the Court on the memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) of Magistrate Judge Brian S. Meyers [DE 4]. The M&R recommends tha: Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied, and that his complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to correct severe pleading deficiencies. [DE 4 at 2]. “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 reasonaply 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 grourds ‘to which the litigant appears to take issue.” Elijah v. Dunbar, 66 © -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,

(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). Objections to the M&R were due on May 2, 2025 [DE 4 at 2]. Plaintiff has filed no objections to the M&R, either before or after the passage of the deadline. Therefore, 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 4] is ADOPTED IN FULL. The Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [DE 2] is DENIED, and the complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The clerk is DIRECTED to close the case.

SO ORDERED, this day of June 2025. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE