Carlos A. Alford v. Bill Nelson, Ashley White, Rob Blake, and Regina Neal-Mujahid

E.D. North Carolina

Carlos A. Alford v. Bill Nelson, Ashley White, Rob Blake, and Regina Neal-Mujahid

District Court, E.D. North Carolina·Decided April 8, 2026·No. 7:24-cv-01041·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION No. 7:24-CV-1041-BO-BM CARLOS A. ALFORD, ) Plaintiff, v. ORDER BILL NELSON, ASHLEY WHITE, ROB BLAKE, and REGINA NEAL-MUJAHID, ) Defendants. This cause comes before the Court on the unopposed memorandum and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Brian S. Meyers. [DE 6]. Judge Meyers allowed plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis and conducted a frivolity review. He recommended that the complaint be dismissed. “The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determination 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, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (cleaned up) (emphasis omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A party’s objections must be made “with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection.” United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007). “[W]hen reviewing pro se objections to a magistrate’s recommendation, district courts must review de novo any articulated grounds to which the litigant appears to take issue.” Elijah v. Dunbar, 66 F.4th 454, 460-61 (4th Cir. 2023). Where no specific objections have been filed, the court reviews for clear error only. Dunlap v. TM Trucking of the Carolinas, LLC, 288 F. Supp. 3d 654, 662 (D.S.C. 2017). On clear error review, the court has no obligation to

explain its reasoning for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). No party has objected to the M&R and the time for doing so has expired. The Court has reviewed the M&R for clear error and finds none. Accordingly, the M&R [DE 9] is ADOPTED in full. The complaint [DE 1] is DISMISSED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case.

SO ORDERED, this § day of April 2026.

) BNALALL Gey By ah □□□ =. ea T ENCE W. BOYLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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. 7:24-CV-1041-BO-BM CARLOS A. ALFORD, ) Plaintiff, v. ORDER BILL NELSON, ASHLEY WHITE, ROB BLAKE, and REGINA NEAL-MUJAHID, ) Defendants. This cause comes before the Court on the unopposed memorandum and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Brian S. Meyers. [DE 6]. Judge Meyers allowed plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis and conducted a frivolity review. He recommended that the complaint be dismissed. “The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determination 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, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (cleaned up) (emphasis omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A party’s objections must be made “with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection.” United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007). “[W]hen reviewing pro se objections to a magistrate’s recommendation, district courts must review de novo any articulated grounds to which the litigant appears to take issue.” Elijah v. Dunbar, 66 F.4th 454, 460-61 (4th Cir. 2023). Where no specific objections have been filed, the court reviews for clear error only. Dunlap v. TM Trucking of the Carolinas, LLC, 288 F. Supp. 3d 654, 662 (D.S.C. 2017). On clear error review, the court has no obligation to

explain its reasoning for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). No party has objected to the M&R and the time for doing so has expired. The Court has reviewed the M&R for clear error and finds none. Accordingly, the M&R [DE 9] is ADOPTED in full. The complaint [DE 1] is DISMISSED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the case.

SO ORDERED, this § day of April 2026.

) BNALALL Gey By ah □□□ =. ea T ENCE W. BOYLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Carlos A. Alford v. Bill Nelson, Ashley White, Rob Blake, and Regina Neal-Mujahid, (E.D.N.C. 2026).

Pincite

Carlos A. Alford v. Bill Nelson, Ashley White, Rob Blake, and Regina Neal-Mujahid (Carlos A. Alford v. Bill Nelson, Ashley White, Rob Blake, and Regina Neal-Mujahid) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related