Carter v. Department of Health and Human Services et al

Filing 11

ORDER adopting 8 Memorandum and Recommendations. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 6/13/2018. Copy sent to Danielle A. Carter via US Mail to P. O. Box 40194, Raleigh, NC 27604. (Stouch, L.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:18-CV-116-BO
DANIELLE A. CARTER,

)
)
)

Plaintiff,

v.

)

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

)
)
)
)

This cause comes before the Court following entry of a memorandum and recommendation
by United States Magistrate Judge James E. Gates. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Plaintiff has filed untimely
objections to the memorandum and recommendation, and the matter is ripe for review. For the
reasons that follow, the memorandum and recommendation (M&R) of Magistrate Judge Gates is
adopted.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff instituted this action pro se by filing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which
was granted by the magistrate judge.

In her complaint, plaintiff alleges claims against the

Department of Health and Buman Services, the State of North Carolina, and the United States
Government arising out of the termination of her parental rights. See [DE 10]. Plaintiff has
asserted a number of tort claims against defendants, and seeks, inter alia, money damages,
permanent reunification with her child, award of sole custody, and expungement of records.
The M&R recommends dismissal of plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic

Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 283 (2005) (discussing doctrine). Plaintiff was notified that her

objections to the M&R were to be filed not later than June 1, 2018 [DE 8]; plaintiff filed her
objections on June 6, 2018. [DE 9].
DISCUSSION
A district court is required to review de nova those portions of an M&R to which a party
timely files specific objections or where there is plain error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); Thomas v.
Am, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). "[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court
need not conduct de nova review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on
the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc.

Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
Plaintiff has failed to timely object to the M&R. The Court has reviewed the M&R and is
satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. Moreover, even having considered
plaintiffs untimely objections, she has failed to come forwardto identify perceived specific errors
in the recommendation, and makes only conclusory objections and additional claims. See Orpiano

v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982) (court need not conduct de nova review where
objections are general or conclusory). Accordingly, the memorandum and recommendation is
ADOPTED.
CONCLUSION
The memorandum and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Gates is ADOPTED.
Plaintiffs complaint is hereby DISMISSED as frivolous for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The clerk is DIRECTED to close the case.
SO ORDERED, this

J....1 day of June, 2018.
T
NCE W. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT

2

/