Everette, Jr. v. Peele et al

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING 10 Memorandum and Recommendation, written by US Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank. The plaintiff's complaint is dismissed. The clerk is directed to enter judgment and close the file. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 10/3/2014. Copy mailed to pro se plaintiff, via US Mail, to 0876887, Hyde Correctional Institution, PO 278, Swan Quarter, NC, 27885. (Fisher, M.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
5:14-CV-213-BO
THOMAS EVERETTE, JR.,
Plaintiff,
V.

REGINA W. PEELE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") of United
States Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank [DE 10]. The Court ADOPTS the M&R.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff names 26 defendants in his complaint and purports to assert 4 causes of action. He
alleges (1) that all defendants have committed fraud and unfair and deceptive trade practices; (2) that the
Edgecombe Sherriffs Department and the officers employed therein violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242;
(3) that Magistrate B.C. Eason violated plaintiffs Eight and Fourteenth Amendment rights; and (4) that
all defendants were involved in a conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of his property.
The case stems from foreclosure proceedings that took place from late 2009 to early 2010. The
land foreclosed upon was that which plaintiff took out a construction loan on.
DISCUSSION
A district court is required to review an M & R de novo if the plaintiff specifically objects to it or
in cases of plain error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). The
district court is only required to make a de novo determination of those specific findings to which the
plaintiff has actually objected. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F .2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983 ).
Here, the plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Swank's M&R, but does so only in a conclusory
fashion. He advances no argument other than to say that his complaint does actually state a claim upon
which relief may be granted and therefore it would be improper to dismiss it. After careful consideration

of these objections the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Swank appropriately applied the facts of this
case to the law and that her conclusions in the M&R are correct. Plaintiff can cite to no case showing
otherwise. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the M&R and DISMISSES the case. Plaintiffs federal
claims are dismissed as frivolous, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff presents no federal claims which are not subject to dismissal
and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.
CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's M & R [DE 10]. Plaintiffs complaint is
DISMISSED. The clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the file.

SO ORDERED.
This th~ day of October, 2014.

~w.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2