BEVERLEY v. BREEZE

Filing 6

ORDER that the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation, (Doc. 4 ), is ADOPTED. FURTHER ORDERED this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for being frivolous or malicious or for faili ng to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, as well as for seeking monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. A Judgment dismissing this action will be filed contemporaneously with this Order. Signed by JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR on 07/08/2024. (at)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA JAMES BEVERLEY, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM BREEZE, Attorney, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:24-cv-149 ORDER On April 18, 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. 4, 5.) 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. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, (Doc. 4), is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED this action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for being frivolous or malicious or for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, as well as for seeking monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. A Judgment dismissing this action will be filed contemporaneously with this Order. This the 8th day of July, 2024. __________________________________ United States District Judge –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?