MONROE v. ADAMS et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEVONTA J. MONROE, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	1:24CV770
)
JAMIE ADAMS et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
On 	February 	9, 	2026, 	the 	United 	States 	Magistrate 	Judge’s
Recommendation 	was 	filed 	and 	notice 	was 	served 	on 	the 	parties 	in
accordance 	with 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	636(b). 	(Docs. 	24, 	25.) 	Defendant
Jamie Adams filed objections within the time limits prescribed by
section 636. 	(Doc. 27.)
The 	court 	has 	appropriately 	reviewed 	the 	portions 	of 	the
Magistrate 	Judge’s 	report 	to 	which 	objections 	were 	made 	and 	has
made a de novo determination in accord with the Magistrate Judge’s
report.
In 	overruling 	Adams’s 	objections, 	the 	court 	notes 	two
relevant 	statements 	within 	the 	complaint 	and 	its 	attachments.
First, 	the 	complaint 	includes 	the 	allegation, 	“Lt. 	Det. 	J. 	White
simply implied that ‘(ADA) Jamie Adams leaked the video.’” 	(Doc.
2 	at 	9.) 	Second, 	an 	attachment 	to 	the 	complaint, 	entitled
“Declaration 	of 	Devonta 	Monroe,” 	included 	the 	statement 	“Lt. 	J.
Case 1:24-cv-00770-TDS-LPA Document 29 Filed 03/30/26 Page 1 of 3

2
White 	implied/stated 	‘[i]t 	had 	to 	be 	the 	DA’s 	office. 	As 	we 	had
been passed it on.’” 	(Id. at 19.)
Adams 	urges 	that 	the 	two 	statements 	conflict 	and 	that 	this
court should disregard the former statement and consider only the
latter. 	(Doc. 	27 	at 	6 	(citing 	S. 	Walk 	at 	Broadlands 	Homeowner’s
Ass’n v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 182 (4th Cir.
2013), 	for 	the 	proposition 	that 	“an 	exhibit 	to 	the 	complaint
prevails when it conflicts with the allegations of a complaint”).)
And the latter statement, which references only “the DA’s office,”
is 	insufficient 	to 	trace 	Monroe’s 	asserted 	injury 	to 	Defendant
Adams. 	(Id. at 6-8.)
Rather than treat the statements as conflicting, the court –
drawing all inferences in favor of Monroe as the non-moving party,
Ibarra 	v. 	United 	States, 	120 	F.3d 	472, 	474 	(4th 	Cir. 	1997), 	and
liberally 	construing 	these 	materials 	as 	is 	appropriate 	given 	his
pro se status, Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978)
– reads the statements in tandem. 	In doing so, the court finds a
plausible understanding of the assertions is that Detective White
made clear to Monroe that Assistant District Attorney Adams leaked
the 	video. 	The 	court 	therefore 	adopts 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s
Recommendation.
Case 1:24-cv-00770-TDS-LPA Document 29 Filed 03/30/26 Page 2 of 3

3
IT 	IS 	THEREFORE 	ORDERED 	that 	Defendant 	Adams’s 	motion 	to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (Doc. 13) is DENIED.
/s/ 	Thomas D. Schroeder
United States District Judge
March 30, 2026
Case 1:24-cv-00770-TDS-LPA Document 29 Filed 03/30/26 Page 3 of 3