Brown v. United States of America et al

Filing 9

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 8 Memorandum and Recommendations; denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The court cannot find fault with the magistrate judge's analysis on the record of the case. It is compelled to ADOPT the M&R, DENY the application to proceed in forma pauperis, and DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE the complaint. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 8/12/2019. (A certified copy of this M&R was sent via US mail to Weylon Scott Brown, 2681 Stevens Chapel Rd., Smithfield, NC 27577.) (Collins, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
NO. 5:19-CV-154-FL
WEYLON SCOTT BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
FRANK BROSTROM, FBI Agent, and
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) of
United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr., regarding plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis and frivolity review of plaintiff’s complaint. (DE 8). No objections to the M&R have been
filed, and the time within which to make any objection has expired. This matter is ripe for ruling.
The district court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge’s M&R to which
specific objections are filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Absent a specific and timely filed objection, the
court reviews only for “clear error,” and need not give any explanation for adopting the M&R.
Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir.1983).
In this case, the magistrate judge correctly determined that plaintiff has demonstrated
appropriate evidence of inability to pay the required court costs. The law requires a further analysis
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and here the magistrate judge determined the complaint fails to
state a claim and is frivolous. The magistrate judge thoughtfully presented the reason why the
United States Congress enacted such a law and explained the standard to be applied in this instance.

See, e.g., McLean v. United States, 566 F.3d 391, 399 (4th Cir. 2009). And he discussed in great
detail the claims sought to be asserted.
The court cannot find fault with the magistrate judge’s analysis on the record of the case.
It is compelled to ADOPT the M&R, DENY the application to proceed in forma pauperis, and
DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE the complaint.
SO ORDERED, this the 12th day of August, 2019.
_____________________________
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN
United States District Judge

2