Foy v. United States of America et al

Filing 21

ORDER adopting 7 Memorandum and Recommendations; dismissing 9 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis; dismissing 17 Motion for the Court to issue its final order; dismissing 18 Motion for Recusal; granting 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 8/21/2017. (Briggeman, N.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:17-CV-80-D

RICHARD C. FOY,
Plaintiff,

v.

)
)
)
)

)

ORDER

)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

On February 14, 2017, Richard C. Foy ("Foy" or "plaintiff') filed a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis [D.E. 1] and a proposed complaint [D.E. 1-1]. On February 23, 2017, Foy filed a
proposed amended complaint [D.E. 5]. On March 6, 2017, the court referred the motion to United
States Magistrate Judge Jones for a frivolity review [D.E. 6]. On March 17, 2017, Magistrate Judge
Jones issued a Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") [D.E. 7]. In that M&R, Judge Jones
recommended that F oy' s application to proceed in forma pauperis be granted and that the complaint
be dismissed as frivolous.
On March 31,2017, Foy objected to the M&R [D.E. 8]. On AprilS, 2017, Foy filed amotion
to appeal in forma pauperis [D.E. 9]. On AprilS, 2017, Foy filed a notice of appeal [D.E. 10]. On
May 26, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Foy's appeal.
See [D.E. 14].
On June 9, 2017, the case was reassigned from Senior United States District Judge Fox to
United States District Judge Boyle [D.E. 16]. On June 12, 2017, Foy filed a motion for the court to
issue its final order [D.E. 17]. -On June 23, 2017, Foy filed a motion for Judge Boyle recuse himself
from the case [D.E. 18]. On July 3, 2017, the case was reassigned to the undersigned [D.E. 19].

"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
towhichobjectionismade." Diamond v. ColonialLife&Accidentlns. Co., 416 F.3d310, 315 (4th
Cir. 2005) (emphasis, alteration, and quotation omitted); see 28 U.S.C. § 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, the record, and Foy's objections. As for those portions
of the M&R to which Foy made no objection, the court is satisfied that there is no clear error on the
face of the record. As for the objections, the court has reviewed the objections and the M&R de
novo. Foy's objections are baseless and are overruled. The court adopts the conclusions in the
M&R.

J

In sum, Foy's application to proceed in forma pauperis [D.E. 1] is GRANTED, and Foy's
complaint is DISMISSED as frivolous. Foy's motions to appeal in forma pauperis [D.E. 9], for the
court to issue its final order [D.E. 17], and for recusal [D.E. 18] are DISMISSED. The clerk shall
close the case.
SO ORDERED. This _g_ day of August 2017.

Chief United States District Judge

2

/