BANNER v. ROWDY et al

Filing 7

ORDER signed by JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR on 07/08/2024, 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. § 1915A for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted as to Defendants Millan, Gomez, Poole, and Locklear but proceed as to the claim against Defendant Rowdy. (lg)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA MONTREALL BANNER, Plaintiff, v. C/O ROWDY, C/O GOMEZ, MAC MILLAN, KATY POOLE, and DEAN LOCKLEAR, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:24-cv-384 ORDER On May 16, 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. 3, 4.) 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. 3), is ADOPTED. 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 as to Defendants Millan, Gomez, Poole, and Locklear but proceed as to the claim against Defendant Rowdy. 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?