Traynham v. Clinard

• Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
• Decided: May 6, 2025
• Docket: 7:24-cv-01082
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DMSION No. 7:24-CV-1082-D WILLIE TRAYNHAM,J R., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) JAMES CLINARD,e t. al., ) ) Defendants. ) On November 19, 2024,W illie Traynham, Jr. (''Traynham" or ''plaintiff'),appearin g pro � filed a complaint alleging various violation of his rights under the United States Constitution and federal regulations [D.E. l] and motion to proceed in forma pauperis [D.E. 2]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1 ),th e court referred the matter to United States Magistrate Judge Numbers for a memorandum and recommendation on Traynham's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and for frivolity review [D.E. 5]. On November 25,2 024, Magistrate Judge Numbers granted Traynham's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [D.E. 6]. On April 1,2 025,M agistrate Judge Numbers issued a memorandum and recommendation (''M&R") [D.E. 8]. In the M&R,M agistrate Judge Numbers recommended that the court allow Traynham's claim against James Clinard ("Clinard") under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth Amendment to proceed and dismiss without prejudice Traynham's other claims. See id. ''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); g 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Absent a timely 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, 416 F.3d at 315 (quotation omitted). Ifa party makes only general objections, de novo review is not required. See Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1997). In “order to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection.” Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted); see United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007). Neither party objected to the M&R. Therefore, the court reviews for clear error. The court has reviewed the M&R and the record. There is no clear error on the face of the record. See Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315. In sum, the court ADOPTS the conclusions in the M&R [D.E. 8], DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE all of Traynham’s claims other than his claim against Clinard under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fousth Amendment, and DISMISSES all defendants other than Clinard from the case.

_ SO ORDERED. This _& day of May, 2025.

Deven nS C. DEVER I United States District Judge