IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:25-CV-192-BO-RN

KAREN WILLIAMS, ) Plaintiff, ) V. ORDER UNASAM UMEUETT, OLIVIA EDWARDS, and KARLA WILLIAMS, ) Defendants. )

This cause comes before the Court on the memorandum and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Robert Numbers. [DE 11]. Plaintiff, who proceeds in this action pro se, has failed to file any objections to the memorandum and recommendation (M&R) and the time for doing so has expired. 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 Numbers has recommended dismissal of plaintiff's amended complaint without prejudice for failure to establish subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, the amended complaint brings no claims under federal law and there is no diversity among the parties. As plaintiff has failed to object to the M&R, the Court has reviewed the M&R for clear error and finds none. The M&R is therefore adopted in full.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the M&R is ADOPTED in full. Plaintiff's amended complaint is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case.

SO ORDERED, this PAiay of October 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUPGE