Nigel Max Edge v. Brian Shaner

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION Case No. 7:25-CV-01112-M NIGEL MAX EDGE, Plaintiff, V. ORDER BRIAN SHANER, Defendant.

This matter comes before the court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. DE 5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), United States Magistrate Robert T. Numbers, II, entered a memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”), in which Judge Numbers recommends that the court grant Defendant’s motion. DE 9. Plaintiff filed a “Response” to the M&R. A magistrate judge’s recommendation carries no presumptive weight. The court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the .. . recommendation ] . . . receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); accord Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 271 (1976). The court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Jd. § 636(b)(1). Absent a specific and timely objection, the court reviews only for “clear error” and need not give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).

Although Plaintiff filed a “Response” to the M&R, the court discerns no clear objection to any specific finding or recommendation in the M&R. DE 10. Instead, Plaintiff seems to accuse Judge Numbers of underappreciating the significance of Plaintiff's claims, explaining to the court that Defendant’s alleged behavior towards Plaintiff, “a severely handicapped honorable retired veteran wounded in the line of duty[,] . . . is extreme and outrageous.” DE 10 at 1. Plaintiff also contends that Defendant “directly caus[ed] ‘recent events,’” by which Plaintiff seems to refer to Plaintiffs decision to discharge his firearm at several people at an outdoor pub in Southport, North Carolina. DE 10 at 1. Even construed liberally, these complaints do not identify the specific findings of the M&R against which Plaintiff purportedly objects. The court, accordingly, reviews the M&R for clear error.

Upon careful review of the M&R and the record presented, and finding no clear error, the court ADOPTS the recommendation of the magistrate judge as its own. For the reasons stated therein, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. DE 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. ko SO ORDERED this S day of January, 2026.

Fadil SM ease RICHARD E. MYERS II CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE