WASALAAM v. CORNELIUS et al

Filing 7

ORDER signed by CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR on 09/11/2017, that the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (Doc. 3 ) is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 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

SULYAMAN AL ISLAM WASALAAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
KIMBERLEY CORNELIUS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:17CV697

ORDER
This matter is before this court for review of the
Recommendation filed on August 10, 2017, by the Magistrate Judge
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). (Doc. 3.) In the
Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this action
be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failing to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The
Recommendation was served on the parties to this action on
August 10, 2017. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff made a timely filing,
which, out of an abundance of caution, the court construes as an
objection to the Recommendation. (Doc. 5.)1

The filing states that “[Plaintiff] will accept Judges
Magistrate Report and Recommendation under return balance due over charge $34.” (Doc. 5 at 2 (all-cap font omitted).)
1

This court is required to Amake 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 Amay accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made 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
Recommendation to which objections were made and has made a
de novo determination which is in accord with the Magistrate
Judge=s Recommendation. This court therefore adopts the
Recommendation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge=s
Recommendation (Doc. 3) is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that
this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) 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 11th day of September, 2017.

____________________________________
United States District Judge

- 2 -