The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:23-CV-175-D
BROTHER BELTRAN BEY, )
Plaintiff,
□ v. ORDER
LOLO LOLITA BROWN HOWELL
and AUBREY BRIDGES, )
Defendants.
On April 4, 2023, Brother Beltran Bey (“Beltran Bey” or “plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed
a complaint against Lolo Lolita Brown Howell and Aubrey Bridges [D.E. 1]. On May 30, 2023,
Beltran Bey filed a corrected complaint [D.E. 4] and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis under
28 U.S.C. § 1915 [D.E. 7]. On June 1, 2023, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court referred
the case to United States Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank for a Memorandum and
Recommendation (“M&R”) and for a frivolity review [D.E. 8]. On October 3, 2023, Judge Swank
issued an M&R recommending that the court deny the motion to proceed in forma paurperis and that
the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute [D.E. 9].
“The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determination of
those portions of the magistrate judge’s report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th
Cir. 2005) (cleaned up); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Absent a timely objection, “a district court need
not conduct a 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, 416 F.3d at 315 (quotation
omitted). If a party makes only general objections, de novo review is not required. See Wells v.
Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1997). In “order to preserve for appeal an issue in a
magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with
sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the obj ection.”
‘Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted); see United States v.
Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007).
Beltran Bey did not object to the M&R. Therefore, the court reviews for clear error. See
Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315. The court has reviewed the M&R and the record. There is no clear error
on the face of the record. See id.
In sum, the court ADOPTS the conclusions in the M&R [D.E. 9] and DISMISSES WITH
PREJUDICE plaintiff's complaint for failure to prosecute. The-clerk shall close the case.
SO ORDERED. This 31 day of October, 2023.
—_— Hey
iss C. DEVER I
United States District Judge