Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina adopted a magistrate judge’s memorandum and recommendation after finding no objections and no clear error. The court granted the plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and dismissed the motion for a temporary restraining order.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court should review the magistrate judge's memorandum and recommendation for clear error when neither party objected.
- Whether the court should adopt the memorandum and recommendation and dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
- Whether the motion for a temporary restraining order should be dismissed after dismissal of the complaint.
Holdings
- When neither party timely objects to a magistrate judge's memorandum and recommendation, the district court reviews the recommendation for clear error on the face of the record rather than conducting de novo review.
- The complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim.
- The motion for a temporary restraining order was dismissed following dismissal of the complaint.
Key quotations
“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.” (at 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.”” (at 1)
“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 objection.”” (at 1)
Factual background
Regis filed a complaint against Judge Kevin Boxberger, Lauren Kayani, and Ashley Oldham. The complaint was accompanied by requests to proceed in forma pauperis and for a temporary restraining order. The court's order does not provide substantive facts underlying the claims, instead adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed the action on December 17, 2025, along with motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for a temporary restraining order. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr., who issued an M&R on February 26, 2026, recommending dismissal of the complaint and denial as moot of the in forma pauperis motion. The district court found no clear error, adopted the M&R's conclusions, granted the in forma pauperis request, dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and dismissed the temporary-restraining-order motion.