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.)

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. § 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