AVILA v. U.S., 1:09CV1001. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20150611c08
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jun. 10, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 10, 2015
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. BEATY, Jr. , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on a Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (the "Recommendation") [Doc. #10], which was filed and served on the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b). In the Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Motion for Return of Property [Doc. #9] filed, pro se , by Plaintiff Francisco Duran Avila ("Palintiff") be denied. In his Motion, Plaintiff sought the return of $55.07, which he had
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. BEATY, Jr. , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on a Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (the "Recommendation") [Doc. #10], which was filed and served on the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b). In the Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Motion for Return of Property [Doc. #9] filed, pro se , by Plaintiff Francisco Duran Avila ("Palintiff") be denied. In his Motion, Plaintiff sought the return of $55.07, which he had s..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. BEATY, Jr., Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on a Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (the "Recommendation") [Doc. #10], which was filed and served on the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). In the Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Motion for Return of Property [Doc. #9] filed, pro se, by Plaintiff Francisco Duran Avila ("Palintiff") be denied. In his Motion, Plaintiff sought the return of $55.07, which he had submitted to the Court on April 12, 2010, as the initial partial filing fee for the above-captioned case. No objections to the Recommendation were filed within the time limits prescribed by § 636.
In the absence of objections, this Court reviews the Recommendation only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note. The Court has appropriately reviewed the Recommendation. Having done so, the Court finds that no clear error exists and the Recommendation should be adopted. The Magistrate Judge's Recommendation [Doc. #10] is therefore affirmed and adopted for the reasons set forth therein.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion for the Return of Property [Doc. #9] is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
