Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Salim-Gould v. Farrakhan

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Northern Division

March 10, 2015

ABU SALIM-GOULD, Plaintiff,
v.
MINISTER LOUIS FARRAKHAN; NATION OF ISLAM; NATION OF ISLAM PRISON REFORM MINISTRY; and SUPPORT PRISON REFORM, INC., NFP, Defendants.

ORDER

LOUISE W. FLANAGAN, District Judge.

This matter comes before the court on the memorandum and recommendation ("M&R") of Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr., pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), wherein it is recommended that the court dismiss the case upon frivolity review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). No objections to the M&R have been filed. In this posture, the issues raised are ripe for ruling. For the reasons that follow, the court adopts the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismisses the complaint.

DISCUSSION

The district court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge's M&R to which specific objections are filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Absent a specific and timely filed objection, the court reviews only for "clear error, " and need not give any explanation for adopting the M&R. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir.1983). Upon careful review of the record, "the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint on January 1, 2015, alleging that defendants violated federal law and the United States Constitution in various ways, including embezzlement, extortion, fraud, conspiracy, slavery, human rights violations, unconscionability, abuse of power, freedom of contract, misrepresentation, and exploitive contracts. Plaintiff seeks $5, 000, 000 in nominal damages, $5, 000, 000 in compensatory damages, and $5, 000, 000 in punitive damages, along with various forms of injunctive relief.

In the M&R, it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim because plaintiff fails to allege facts showing that defendants are acting under the color of state law. Where plaintiff does not object to this ground for dismissal set forth in the M&R, the court reviews this determination for clear error. Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315. Finding no such error, plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

CONCLUSION

Upon considered reviewed of the M&R and the record generally, the court ADOPTS the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge in full. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.

SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.