McNair v. City of Rocky Mount Police Dept.

Filing 9

ORDER adopting 6 Memorandum and Recommendations - Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED. Where ambiguities in plaintiff's filings, including his so-called affidavit in support of his complaint and his objections to the M&R, prevent the co urt from definitively determining if plaintiff's complaint was filed was in violation of his pre-filing injunction, the court construes these ambiguities in plaintiff's favor. Plaintiff is, however, noticed, that the court may not so leniently interpret his filings in the future where it appears any violation exists of said injunction. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 02/27/2013. (Baker, C.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DNISION No. 4:12-CV-275-FL ANTHONY L. MCNAIR, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ROCKY MOUNT POLICE DEPARTMENT, and CITY OF ROCKY MOUNT Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER This matter is before the court on plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (DE# 1), filed November 26, 2012, and the memorandum and recommendation ("M&R") of Magistrate Judge William A. Webb (DE# 6), filed on December 26, 2012, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), recommending that plaintiffs proposed complaint be dismissed because the proposed complaint is frivolous. Plaintiff filed objections to the M&R on January 2, 2013 (DE# 8). Upon de novo review of the M&R, the complaint, and plaintiffs objections, the court ADOPTS the M&R as its own and OVERRULES the objections to the M&R, finding that the M&R sufficiently explains the basis for dismissal of this action. For the reasons stated in the M&R, the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (DE #1) is GRANTED but plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED. The clerk is directed to close this case. Moreover, where ambiguities in plaintiffs filings, including his so-called affidavit in support of his complaint and his objections to the M&R, prevent the court from definitively determining if plaintiffs complaint was filed was in violation of his pre-filing injunction, the court construes these ambiguities in plaintiffs favor. Plaintiff is, however, noticed, that the court may not so leniently interpret his filings in the future where it appears any violation exists of said injunction. SO ORDERED, this th~ day of February, 2013. ~ Uc)\c-; IS W. FLANAGA United States District Judge 2