Abu Shamla v. Alfonso-Royals

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION No. 7:25-CV-1136-D TAMER K. ABU SHAMLA, ) Plaintiff, Vv. ORDER ANGELICA ALFONSO-ROYALS, et al., Defendants. On June 13, 2025, Tamer K. Abu Shamla (“Abu Shamla” or “plaintiff’), appearing pro se, filed a complaint against Angelica Alfonso-Royals, Kristi Noem, in her official capacity as the United States Secretary of Homeland Security, and The Director of U.S. Citizenship end Immigration Services (collectively, “defendants”) [D.E. 1] and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis [D.E. 2]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court referred the matter to United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr., for a memorandum and recommendation on Abu Shamhk’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and for frivolity review [D.E. 6]. On July 7, 2025, Magistrate Judge Jones issued a memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) [D.E. 7]. In the M&R, Magistrate Judge Jones recommended that the court dismiss Abu Shamla’s complaint and deny as moot the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See id, at 1. On July 16, 2025, Abu Shamla timely objected to the M&R [D.E. 8]. “The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determinatior 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., 416 F.3d 310, 15 (4th Cir. 2005) (cleaned up); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Absent a timely objection, “a district ccurt need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear ernr.

on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315 (quotation omitted). The court has reviewed the M&R and Abu Shamla’s objections. Magistrate Judge Jones recommended that the court dismiss Abu Shamla’s complaint and deny the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Abu Shamla’s “objections” to the M&R are nearly incomprehensible and largely nonresponsive to the M&R. See [D.E. 8] 2-9. In any event, the court has reviewed Abu Shamla’s complaint, the record, and the M&R de novo. The court agrees with Magistrate Judge Jones’s recommendations, overrules Abu Shamla’s objections, and adopts the conclusions in the M&R. In sum, the court DENIES plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [D.E. 2], OVERRULES plaintiff’s objections to the M&R [D.E. 8], ADOPTS the conclusions in the M&R [D.E. 7], and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE plaintiff’s complaint [D.E. 1]. The clerk SHALL close the case. SO ORDERED. This 21 day of July, 2025.

tht — United States District Judge