Woolens v. Ruckle

E.D. North Carolina

Woolens v. Ruckle

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina

DecidedApril 14, 2023

Docket7:23-cv-00125

StatusUnknown

This text of Woolens v. Ruckle (Woolens v. Ruckle) 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

Woolens v. Ruckle, (E.D.N.C. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION No. 7:23-CV-125-D

WILLIAMD. WOOLENS, ) Plaintiff, v. ORDER CHARLENE DENISE RUCKLE, et al., Defendants.

On February 15, 2023, plaintiff filed a complaint [D.E. 1] and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis [D.E. 2]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. for a memorandum and recommendation on the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and for a frivolity review [D.E. 5]. On March 28, 2023, Magistrate Judge - Jones issued a Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) and recommended that the complaint be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, for failure to state aclaim upon which relief can be granted. See [D.E. 6]. “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 which objection is made.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th - Cir. 2005) (cleaned up); see 28 USC. § 636(b). Absent a timely objection, “a district court need not conduct ade 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 3 15 (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, aparty 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). Plaintiff did not object 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 has reviewed the record and ADOPTS the conclusions in the M&R [D.E. 6], GRANTS plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis [D.E. 2], and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted [D.E. 1]. The clerk shall close the case. SO ORDERED. This !4 day of April, 2023. □

4. —Devar J S C. DEVER I United States District Judge

| ‘2

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. 7:23-CV-125-D

WILLIAMD. WOOLENS, ) Plaintiff, v. ORDER CHARLENE DENISE RUCKLE, et al., Defendants.

On February 15, 2023, plaintiff filed a complaint [D.E. 1] and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis [D.E. 2]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. for a memorandum and recommendation on the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and for a frivolity review [D.E. 5]. On March 28, 2023, Magistrate Judge - Jones issued a Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) and recommended that the complaint be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, for failure to state aclaim upon which relief can be granted. See [D.E. 6]. “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 which objection is made.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th - Cir. 2005) (cleaned up); see 28 USC. § 636(b). Absent a timely objection, “a district court need not conduct ade 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 3 15 (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, aparty 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). Plaintiff did not object 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 has reviewed the record and ADOPTS the conclusions in the M&R [D.E. 6], GRANTS plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis [D.E. 2], and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted [D.E. 1]. The clerk shall close the case. SO ORDERED. This !4 day of April, 2023. □

4. —Devar J S C. DEVER I United States District Judge

| ‘2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Woolens v. Ruckle, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woolens-v-ruckle-nced-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack