Marom v. Pierot et al

Filing 43

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 19 Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, to change venue. This action, including all pending motions [D.E. 23, 28, 31, 34], is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Signed by District Judge James C. Dever III on 12/18/2018. Sent to Audrey Pierot and Mark Gordon at 13 Elizabeth St. Scarsdale, NY 10583 and Michael Marom at 5448 Apex Peakway #206 Apex, NC 27502 via US Mail. (Sellers, N.)

IN TilE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR TilE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:17-CV-608-D
MICHAEL MAROM,
Plaintiff,
v.

/

AUDREY PIEROT, and
MARK GORDON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

On December 11, 2017, Michael Marom ("Marom" or ''plaintiff''), appearing pro se, filed

a complaint against Audrey Pierot ("Pierot") and Mark Gordon ("Gordon", collectively
\

"defendants") [D.E. 1]. On March 7, 2018, Gordon, also appearing prose, moved to dismiss the
complaint or, in the alternative, to change venue [D.E. 19]. On March 15, 2018, Pierot, also
appearing pro se, moved to dismiss the complaint [D.E. 23]. On March 16, 2018, Marom moved
for a default judgment [D.E. 28]. On March 30, 2018, Marom moved for leave to file an exhibit
. [D.E. 31]. On May 15,2018, Marom moved for summary judgment [D.E. 34].
On June 19,2018, the court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Jones for a memorandum

and recommendation on the pending motions and for a frivolity review [D.E. 39]. On November 7,
2018, Magistrate Judge Jones issued a Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") and
recommended that Gordon's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to change venue [D.E. 19] be
granted in part and that the court transfer this action, including all pending motions, to the United
States District Court for the Southern District ofNew York. See [D.E. 40]. On November 26, 2018,
defendants objected to the M&R [D.E. 41]. On December 3, 2018, Marom responded to the

objections [D.E. 42].
I

"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." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 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, the record, and defendants' objections. As for those
portions of the M&R to which defendants made no objection, the court is satisfied that there is no
clear error on the face ofthe record. As for the objections, the court has reviewed the objections and
the M&R de novo. Defendants' objections are overruled.
In sum, the court GRANTS in part Gordon's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to

change venue [D.E. 19]. This action, including all pending motions [D.E. 23, 28, 31, 34], is
transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District ofNew York.
SO ORDERED. This .1.8. day of December 2018.

2