CARMONA v. UNION COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY et al

Filing 22

ORDER signed by JUDGE LORETTA C. BIGGS on 5/9/2022; that Plaintiff's requests to amend are DENIED. 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, without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a new Complaint stating a claim against a proper party or pursuing any claims he may have under state law in state court. (Hicks, Samantha)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
JASON CARMONA,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNION COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:21CV729

ORDER
Plaintiff Jason Carmona filed a Complaint, (ECF No. 1), under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the
United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The Western District
later transferred the matter to this District and Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint as of
right, (ECF No. 14).
On January 14, 2022, the United States Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation,
(ECF No. 16), recommending that the matter be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failing
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and notice was served on the parties pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Plaintiff submitted what was docketed as Objections to the

Recommendation but styled as a Motion to Amend, (ECF No. 18), seeking to amend the
Complaint to state a proper claim for relief.
On March 24, 2022, the United States Magistrate Judge filed another Recommendation,
(ECF No. 19), recommending that the Motion to Amend be denied. Notice was served on
the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. In the Recommendation, the U.S. Magistrate Judge

ordered that any objections to either Recommendation be filed by April 7, 2022. Plaintiff filed
objections, (ECF No. 21), within the time limit prescribed. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s
objections de novo and finds that they do not change the substance of the United States
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendations, (ECF Nos. 16, 19), which are both affirmed and
adopted.
To the extent that Plaintiff may be attempting to again move to amend the complaint,
that request will be denied because he has not filed a proper motion or included the proposed
amended complaint. Moreover, the amendment would be futile since it appears that he is
seeking to amend to sue an entity which is not a proper defendant under 42 USC § 1983.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s requests to amend are DENIED.
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, without
prejudice to Plaintiff filing a new Complaint stating a claim against a proper party or pursuing
any claims he may have under state law in state court.
This, the 9th day of May 2022.
/s/ Loretta C. Biggs
United States District Judge

2