STAFFORD v. UNKNOWN NCDPS OFFICIALS

Filing 5

ORDER signed by JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR. on 3/26/2024; that the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation, (Doc. 2 ), is ADOPTED. FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff filing a new complaint, on the proper Section 1983 forms, which corrects the defects cited in the Recommendation. A Judgment dismissing this action will be entered contemporaneously with this Order. (sh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
DELVIN STAFFORD,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNKNOWN NCDPS OFFICIALS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:23-cv-1121

ORDER
On January 5, 2024, the United States Magistrate Judge’s
Order and Recommendation (“Recommendation”) was filed, and
notice was served on the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.
(Docs. 2, 3.) No objections were filed within the time
prescribed by Section 636.
Therefore, the court need not make a de novo review and the
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation is hereby adopted. 1
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation, (Doc. 2), is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

On March 25, 2024, the Clerk received a letter from
Plaintiff which has been docketed as an Objection to the
Recommended Ruling. (Doc. 4.) Although docketed as an objection,
the letter appears to express frustration with mailings at the
County Jail and does not raise “specific and particularized”
objections. United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621 (4th
Cir. 2007). Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to identify
“specified proposed findings . . . to which objection is made,”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and de novo review is not necessary.
1

that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff
filing a new complaint, on the proper Section 1983 forms, which
corrects the defects cited in the Recommendation.
A Judgment dismissing this action will be entered
contemporaneously with this Order.
This the 26th day of March, 2024.

__________________________________
United States District Judge

–2–