Allen v. Cooper

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:22-cv-00463-BO-BM ) DERRICK ALLEN, ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) ORDER ) ROY COOPER et al., ) Defendants. ) )

This cause comes before the Court on the memorandum and recommendation (““M&R”) of Magistrate Judge Brian S. Meyers [DE 5]. For the reasons below, the M&R is adopted in full. A district court is required to review de novo those portions of a memorandum and recommendation ("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). To trigger such review, the objecting party “must object to the finding or recommendation with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection.” Elijah v. Dunbar, 66 F.4th 454, 460 (4th Cir. 2023) (quoting United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007)). "[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead 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) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Here, the time for objections lapsed on September 9, 2024, anc Plaint.ff did not file an objection. As such, the Court need only review the M&R for clear error. Having reviewed both the initial complaint and the full memorandum and recommendation, the Court is satisfied th.at

there is no clear error on the face of the record. As such, the Court ADOPTS the M&R [DE 5] in full.

SO ORDERED, this pe friay of November 2024.

TERRENCE W, BOYLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE