Da’Jwan Quintaj Monroe v. Corporal Rodriguez, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA DA’JWAN QUINTAJ MONROE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:25-cv-35 ) CORPORAL RODRIGUEZ, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER This matter is before the Court on the United States Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum Opinion and Recommendation (“Recommendation”), Dkt. 32, following Mr. Monroe’s “Motion to be Heard” seeking his transfer to a different county jail to abate alleged mistreatment he faces at the hands of jail staff, Dkt. 20. In her Recommendation, filed March 2, 2026, the Magistrate Judge construed Mr. Monroe’s pro se motion as a motion for a preliminary injunction. See Dkt. 32 at 3 & n.1. She then recommended denying the motion. Id at 3. The Clerk’s Office served notice on the parties the same day, Dkt. 33, and no objections were filed within the requisite time limit, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Therefore, the Court need not make a de novo determination, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), and “must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation,’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment). After due consideration, the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation is hereby adopted in full.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, Dkt. 32, is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Monroe’s Motion to be Heard, properly construed as a motion for a preliminary injunction, is DENIED.

This the 27th day of April, 2026.

LINDSEY A. FREEMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE