IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DIVISION No. 4:24-CV-133-BO-BM

JASON T. PETERSON, ) Plaintiff, : ORDER SHANNON WAINWRIGHT, in her official capacity, and HOUSING AUTHORITY OF ) GREENVILLE, ) Defendants. )

This cause comes before the Court on the memorandum and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Brian S. Meyers. [DE 40]. No party has filed an objection to the memorandum and recommendation (M&R), and the time for doing so has passed. In this posture, the matter is ripe for disposition. “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). Magistrate Judge Meyers has recommended that defendants’ first motion to dismiss be denied as moot, that defendants’ second motion to dismiss be granted, that plaintiff's motion to expedite be denied as moot, and that defendants’ motion to stay be denied as moot. The Court has reviewed the M&R for clear error and finds none. Accordingly, the Court adopts the M&R in full. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the M&R is ADOPTED. Defendants’ motion to dismiss [DE 8] is DENIED AS MOOT; defendants’ second motion to dismiss [DE 18] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's False Claims Act claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All other federal claims in plaintiff's complaint, as amended, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims, and those claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's motion to expedite [DE 17] is DENIED AS MOOT. Defendant’s motion to stay [DE 29] is DENIED AS MOOT. The clerk is DIRECTED to close the case.

SO ORDERED, this x: day of September 2025.

Teena Beal TEKRENCE W. BOYLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE