Monk et al v. State of North Carolina et al

Filing 6

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 2 Memorandum and Recommendations. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 4/25/2013. Copy sent to the plaintiffs via US Mail. (Edwards, S.)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION 5:12-CV-770-BO LARRY DENNELL MONK, II, and A.R.L.M., a minor, ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, HARNETT COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, TIFFANY MICHELLE MCNEILL, and JOHN DOES 1 TO 100, ) ) ) ) ) Defendants. ) This matter is before the Court on the Memorandum and Recommendation ("M & R") of United States Magistrate Judge James E. Gates [DE 2]. The Court ADOPTS theM & Rand this action is DISMISSED. BACKGROUND This matter arises from the plaintiffs allegations that the State of North Carolina and Tiffany Michelle McNeill maliciously interfered with the plaintiffs rights to a relationship with his child and prevented him from receiving equal protection of the law in causing a restraining order to issue against him. The plaintiffs complaint also contains other claims all arising from disputes over the custody and support of his minor child. Magistrate Judge Gates recommended that the Court dismiss the plaintiffs complaint for several reasons, including the need for the Court to abstain from hearing claims related to disputes over child custody under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-84 (1983). The plaintiff was notified of his right to object to the M & R. The plaintiff did not file such an objection and the M & R is now before this Court for consideration. DISCUSSION The Court adopts the M & because the plaintiff has made no objections to it and because theM & R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1)(B). A district court is only required to review an M & R de novo if the defendant specifically objects to it or in cases of plain error. Id; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The magistrate has not committed plain error in this instance. Therefore, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommendations and dismisses this matter. CONCLUSION The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's recommendations [DE 2]. Therefore, this matter is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. This the ~day of April, 2013. T RRENCE W. BOYLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

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?