McNair v. City of Rocky Mount et al
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations regarding 4 Memorandum and Recommendations. The plaintiff's complaint is hereby DISMISSED in its entirety. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 5/9/2013. (Rudd, D.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ANTHONY L. MCNAIR,
CITY OF ROCKY MOUNT, LOUISE W.
FLANAGAN, and WILLIAM A. WEBB,
This cause comes before the Court on the memorandum and recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge James E. Gates regarding frivolity review of plaintiffs complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiffhas objected to the memorandum and
recommendation (M&R), and the matter is ripe for review. For the reasons discussed below, the
Court adopts the M&R and dismisses plaintiffs complaint.
Plaintiff filed this action alleging that defendants "did conspired unconstitutionally
depriving [plaintiff] of human rights to enslave him from a life live by commit illegal and
unlawfully acts (2005-2013)." The M&R concludes that, although plaintiffs complaint is not
barred by a prefiling injunction currently in place, plaintiff has failed to state any claim upon
which relief may be granted, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and recommends that this matter be
A claim proceeding in forma pauperis may be dismissed at any time if it is frivolous. 28
U.S.C. § 1915( e )(2)(B)(i). A complaint is frivolous if"it lacks an arguable basis either in law
or fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). To make a frivolity determination, a
court may designate a magistrate judge "to submit ... proposed findings of fact and
recommendations" for the disposition of a variety of motions. 28 U .S.C. § 636(b )(1 )(B).
A district court is required to review de novo those portions of an M&R to which a party
timely files specific objections or where there is plain error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). De novo review is not required when an objecting party
makes only general or conclusory objections that do not direct a court to a specific error in the
magistrate judge's recommendations. Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44,47 (4th Cir. 1982).
Further, when "objections to strictly legal issues are raised and no factual issues are challenged,
de novo review may be dispensed with." !d.
The recommendation that this matter be dismissed is based upon plaintiffs complete
failure to make a short and plain statement of his claims, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and the resulting
failure to give defendants notice of the claims plaintiff is attempting to assert against them.
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,47 (1957), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Plaintiffs objections to the M&R point to no specific error in
Judge Gates' recommendation, but rather make numerous contentions regarding human rights in
general. Further, plaintiffs bare statements in his objections that defendants conspired "to
enslave [plaintiff] human rights as a sex offender, with a sexual assault charge for almost 9
years" and conspired to "enslave [plaintiff] with prisoner case laws" provides no further factual
enhancement upon which the Court could find that plaintiff has stated a claim for relief. Bell At!.
Corp., 550 U.S. at 557.
Because plaintiff has made no specific objections, the Court has reviewed the M&R for
plain error and finds none. Even upon reviewing plaintiffs complaint de novo, however, the
Court finds that dismissal of this action as frivolous is appropriate.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the M&R [DE 4]. Accordingly, for the
reasons discussed therein, plaintiffs complaint is hereby DISMISSED in its entirety.
SO ORDERED, this
_j__ day of May, 2013.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?