Alford v. McDonough

E.D. North Carolina

Alford v. McDonough

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina

DecidedOctober 5, 2021

Docket7:21-cv-00098

StatusUnknown

This text of Alford v. McDonough (Alford v. McDonough) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alford v. McDonough, (E.D.N.C. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION No. 7:21-CV-98-BO

CARLOS A. ALFORD, ) Plaintiff, V. ORDER DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans Affairs ) Defendant.

This cause comes before the Court on corrected memorandum and recommendation! (M&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, IJ. No response or objection to the M&R has been filed, and the time for doing so has expired. The M&R is ripe for review. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint in the Eastern District of North Carolina, alleging that he was entitled to wages at $15/hour instead of $7/hour for his contract work with the Department of Veterans Affairs. Magistrate Judge Numbers subsequently filed the instant M&R recommending that plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be granted and that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A district court is required to review de novo those portions of an M&R to which a party timely files specific objections or where there is plain error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face

| This order addresses the corrected M&R [DE 6]. The Clerk is therefore DIRECTED to terminate as pending the original M&R [DE 5].

of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation and citation omitted). The Court is satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record and ADOPTS the M&R [DE 6]. Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [DE 1] is GRANTED. Plaintiffs complaint [DE 7] is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case.

SO ORDERED, this J day of October, 2021.

JE W. BOYLE / UNITED STATES DISTRICT FUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION No. 7:21-CV-98-BO

CARLOS A. ALFORD, ) Plaintiff, V. ORDER DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans Affairs ) Defendant.

This cause comes before the Court on corrected memorandum and recommendation! (M&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, IJ. No response or objection to the M&R has been filed, and the time for doing so has expired. The M&R is ripe for review. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint in the Eastern District of North Carolina, alleging that he was entitled to wages at $15/hour instead of $7/hour for his contract work with the Department of Veterans Affairs. Magistrate Judge Numbers subsequently filed the instant M&R recommending that plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be granted and that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A district court is required to review de novo those portions of an M&R to which a party timely files specific objections or where there is plain error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face

| This order addresses the corrected M&R [DE 6]. The Clerk is therefore DIRECTED to terminate as pending the original M&R [DE 5].

of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation and citation omitted). The Court is satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record and ADOPTS the M&R [DE 6]. Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [DE 1] is GRANTED. Plaintiffs complaint [DE 7] is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case.

SO ORDERED, this J day of October, 2021.

JE W. BOYLE / UNITED STATES DISTRICT FUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Alford v. McDonough, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alford-v-mcdonough-nced-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack