TOMPKINS v. CLELLAND et al
Filing
11
ORDER signed by JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER on 09/26/2017 adopting the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation, that Plaintiff's motions (Docs. 3 , 4 , 9 ) are DENIED, and that this action is DISMISSED,I>sua sponte without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a new complaint, on the proper § 1983 forms, which corrects the defect cited in the Recommendation. 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
STUART WAYNE TOMPKINS
Plaintiff,
v.
JACK CLELLAND, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:17CV772
ORDER
The Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge was
filed with the court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and, on
August 31, 2017, was served on the parties in this action.
7, 8.)
Plaintiff objected to the Recommendation.
(Docs.
(Doc. 10.) 1
The court has appropriately reviewed the portions of the
Magistrate Judge’s report to which objection was made and has made
a de novo determination, which is in accord with the Magistrate
Judge’s report.
The court therefore adopts the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions (Docs. 3, 4,
9) are DENIED, and that this action is DISMISSED sua sponte without
prejudice to Plaintiff filing a new complaint, on the proper § 1983
1
Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave of court seeking permission
to file his objections and notes that he attached a letter. (Doc. 9.)
Plaintiff does not need leave of court to file his objections, and the
letter does not alter the Recommendation’s basis for dismissal.
forms, which corrects the defect cited in the Recommendation.
A
Judgment dismissing this action will be entered contemporaneously
with this Order.
/s/
Thomas D. Schroeder
United States District Judge
September 26, 2017
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?