GOLDEN v. CITY OF GRAHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA et al

Filing 21

ORDER signed by CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR on 11/02/2015 adopting the Magistrate Judge's Recommendations, that the Magistrate Judge's Recommendations (Docs. 3 , 18 ) are ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A Judgment dismissing this action will be entered contemporaneously with this Order. (Garland, Leah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ODELL GENE GOLDEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF GRAHAM COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA,
Defendant(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:14CV706

ORDER
This matter is before this court for review of the
Recommendation (“Recommendation”) filed on August 21, 2014, by
the Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (Doc.
3). In the Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommended that
this action be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A for failing
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The
Recommendation was served on the parties to this action on
August 21, 2014 (Doc. 4). On September 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed
untimely objections (Doc. 5) to the Recommendation. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (“Within 14 days after being served with a copy
of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file . . .
objections.”). The court will take into consideration
Plaintiff’s objections.

Prior to this court reviewing the objections and making a de
novo determination, on December 11, 2014, the Magistrate Judge
entered a Text Order staying the case in light of the pendency
of a parallel § 2255 action and consistent with Wallace v. Kato,
549 U.S. 384 (2007), and a Text Order withdrawing the
Recommendation.
On September 4, 2015, a second Recommendation was filed by
the Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (Doc.
18). In the Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge ordered that the
stay previously entered in light of Plaintiff’s § 2255 motion be
lifted and that the prior Recommendation (Doc. 3) be reinstated.
The Magistrate Judge also recommended that this action be
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A for failing to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. The Recommendation was
served on the parties to this action on September 4, 2015 (Doc.
19). Plaintiff filed timely objections (Doc. 20) to the
Recommendation.
This court is required to “make a de novo determination of
those portions of the [Magistrate Judge’s] report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This court “may accept, reject, or

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made

- 2 -

by the [M]agistrate [J]udge. . . . [O]r recommit the matter to
the [M]agistrate [J]udge with instructions.”

Id.

This court has appropriately reviewed the portions of the
Recommendations to which objection was made and has made a de
novo determination which is in accord with the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendations.

This court therefore adopts the

Recommendations.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendations (Docs. 3, 18) are ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

that this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for
failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
A Judgment dismissing this action will be entered
contemporaneously with this Order.
This the 2nd day of November, 2015.

_______________________________________
United States District Judge

- 3 -