USCA4 Appeal: 24-1855 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/27/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1855

SAMANTHA ELABANJO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

B. W. GRIFFITH; LAWRENCE CAPPS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:24-cv-00155-FL)

Submitted: January 23, 2025 Decided: January 27, 2025

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samantha Elabanjo, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1855 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/27/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Samantha Elabanjo appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil suit under

(e). The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the case for

failure to state a claim. Elabanjo filed timely and specific objections to the

recommendation. The district court conducted a de novo review of Elabanjo’s objections.

On appeal, Elabanjo asserts that the district court erred in finding that her claims

lacked a basis in the law and erred by applying the clearly erroneous standard of review.

Despite Elabanjo’s assertion, the court explicitly stated that it conducted a de novo review

of each of Elabanjo’s specific objections to the magistrate judge’s report and addressed

each objection in its order. We conclude that the district court applied the appropriate

standard of review and correctly determined that Elabanjo failed to state a claim, and that

her claims that she is immune from state or federal law and that her right to travel is

infringed upon by traffic laws are frivolous. We have reviewed the entire record and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Elabanjo v. Griffith,

No. 5:24-cv-00155-FL (E.D.N.C. August 5, 2024). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2