Williams v. Mrs. Scott

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION

NO. 5:25-CV-294-FL

KAREN WILLIAMS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) MRS. SCOTT and AL MARCELIN, ) ) Defendants. )

This matter is before the court for review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint (DE 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). United States Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II entered memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), wherein it is recommended plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed. (DE 5). Plaintiff did not file objections to the M&R, and the time within which to make any objection has expired. In this posture, the issues raised are ripe for ruling. Upon a careful review of the M&R, the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Because no objections have been filed, the court reviews the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions only for clear error, and need not give any explanation for adopting the M&R. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). The magistrate judge recommends dismissal without prejudice of plaintiffs’ claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Upon careful review of the M&R, the court finds the magistrate judge’s analysis to be thorough, and there is no clear error. The court hereby ADOPTS the recommendation of the magistrate judge as its own, and plaintiff's action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The clerk of court is DIRECTED to close the case. SO ORDERED, this the 24th day of September, 2025.

C A W. FL ANAOEN United States District Judge