IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:23-CV-306-BO-RN

CHRISTIAN PROFFITT, ) Plaintiff, V. ORDER NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY ) Defendant.

This cause comes before the court on the memorandum and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers. [DE 90]. 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 recornmendation, 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,

(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 Numbers has recommended that plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment [DE 62] be denied, and that defendant’s motion for summary judgment [DE 67] be granted as to the sex discrimination claim and otherwise denied. Because plaintiff has failed to identify a valid comparator, defendant is entitled to summary judgment on her Title VII sex discrimination claim. 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, Magistrate Judge Numbers’ memorandum and recommendation [DE 90] is ADOPTED. Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment [DE 62] is DENIED. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [DE 67] is DENIED IN PART, but as to the Title VII sex discrimination claim, is GRANTED.

SO ORDERED, this 30 day of September 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE