King v. CMH Homes, Inc.
ORDER adopting 28 Memorandum and Recommendations; dismissing as moot 29 Motion to Modify Scheduling Order. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 7/17/2017. (Briggeman, N.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WILTON LLOYD KING,
CMH HOMES, INC.,
On June 21, 2017, Magistrate Judge Jones issued a Memorandum and Recommendation
("M&R") [D.E. 28]. In that M&R, Judge Jones recommended that the case be dismissed with
prejudice and that plaintiff and/or his counsel pay counsel for defendant $2,822.50 for expenses
incurred in bringing defendant's motion to compel [D.E. 17] and for failing to comply with the
court's order [D.E.19]. See M&R at 11. Neither party objected to the M&R.
"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
towhichobjectionismade." Diamond v. Colonial Life &Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d310, 315 (4th
Cir. 2005) (emphasis, alteration, and quotation omitted); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Absent a timely
objection, "a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itselfthat
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).
The court has reviewed the M&R and the record. The court is satisfied that there is no clear
error on the face of the record.
The court ADOPTS the conclusions in the M&R [D.E. 28]. Plaintiff's complaint is
DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff's counsel is ORDERED to pay counsel for defendant
$2,822.50 by July 21, 2017. Defendant's contingent motion to modify the scheduling order [D.E.
29] is DISMISSED as moot. The clerk shall close the case.
SO ORDERED. This .J..J day of July 2017.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?