Solomon v. Raleigh Police Department

Filing 7

ORDER adopting 6 Memorandum and Recommendations; granting 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; DISMISSING plaintiff's complaint as frivolous. The clerk shall close the case. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 12/28/2016. (Briggeman, N.)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:16-CV-163-D PATRICKSOLOMON, Plaintiff, v. ) ) ) ) ) RALEIGH POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants. ORDER ) ) ) ) On November 4, 2016, Magistrate Judge Numbers issued a Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R")and recommended that plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis be granted and that the complaint be dismissed as frivolous [D.E. 6]. No objections were filed. "The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge's report or specifie~ proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F .3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (emphasis, alteration, and quotation omitted); see 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b). Absent a timely objection, "a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itselfthat there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315 (quotation omitted). The court has reviewed the M&R and the record. The court is satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record and adopts the conclusions in the M&R. In sum, plaintiffs applications to proceed in forma pauperis [D.E. 1, 5] are GRANTED. The court ADOPTS the conclusions in the M&R [D.E. 6] and DISMISSES plaintiffs complaint as frivolous. The clerk shall close the case. SO ORDERED. This 2.8 day of December 2016. Chief United States District Judge 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?