Opinion
5:22-CV-179-BO
08-09-2022
DERRICK ALLEN SR., Plaintiff, v. ATTORNEY SCOTT BROW, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
TERRENCE W. BOYLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This matter is before the Court on the memorandum and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II. Plaintiff has failed to object to the memorandum and recommendation (M&R) and the time for doing so has expired. For the reasons that follow, the M&R s adopted and the complaint is dismissed.
Plaintiffs complaint alleges violations of his constitutional rights by counsel for his former employer. The M&R recommends dismissal of plaintiffs complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted .
A district court is required to review de novo those portions of an M&R to which a party timely files specific objections or where there is plain error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,149-50 (1985). “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
The Court is satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record and ADOPTS the M&R [DE 8]. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the case.
SO ORDERED.