Best v. Bellevue Hospital et al
ORDER adopting 6 Memorandum and Recommendations. The court GRANTS plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis [D.E. l], ADOPTS the conclusions in the M&R [D.E. 6], ALLOWS plaintiff's complaint against Prime Care Medical, Inc. to proceed, and DISMISSES plaintiff's claims against Bellewe Hospital andEllenville Regional Hospital as barred by the statute of limitations. Signed by District Judge James C. Dever III on 1/6/2021. Sent to Timothy Best at 210 E Firetower Rd. Winterville, NC 28590 via US Mail. (Sellers, N.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
TIMOTHY D. BEST,
ELLENVILLE REGIONAL HOSPITAL,
and PRIME CARE MEDICAL, INC.,
On October 13, 2020, Timothy D. Best ("Best'' or ''plaintiff''), appearing pro se, filed a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 [D.E. 1] and a proposed complaint
[D.E. 1]. On November 5, 2020, the court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Numbers for a
frivolity review [D.E. 5]. On December 9, 2020, Judge Numbers issued a Memorandum and
Recommendation ("M&R") [D.E. 6] and recommended that the claim against Prime Care Medical,
Inc. be allowed to proceed, and that the claims against Bellevue Hospital and Ellenville Hospital be
dismissed because they are barred by the statute of limitations [D.E. 6]. Best did not object to the
"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) (alteration, emphasis, and quotation omitted); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Absent a timely
objection, "a district court need not c~~duct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itselfthat
Case 4:20-cv-00191-D Document 9 Filed 01/06/21 Page 1 of 2
there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Diamond,
416 F.3d at 31 S (quotation omitted). If a 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. 8S8 F.3d 239, 24S (4th Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted); see
United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616,622 (4th Cir. 2007). ,
The court has reviewed the M&R and the entire record, and is satisfied that there is no clear
error on the face of the record. See Diamond, 416 F.3d at 31S. Thus, the court adopts the
conclusions in the M&R.
In sum, the court GRANTS plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis [D.E. l],
ADOPTS the conclusions in the M&R [D.E. 6], ALLOWS plaintiff's complaint against Prime Care
Medical, Inc. to proceed, and 'DIS:tvfISSES plaintiff's claims against Bellewe Hospital and
Ellenville Regional Hospital as barred by the statute of limitations.
SO ORDERED. This .J!.... day of January 2021.
United States District Judge
Case 4:20-cv-00191-D Document 9 Filed 01/06/21 Page 2 of 2
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?