Bridgewater v. 5800 Seward LLC

Filing 7

ORDER adopting 5 Memorandum and Recommendations. Signed by Chief Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 7/1/2019. Copy sent via US Mail to Nicole Ruby Bridgewater 183 Mill Creek Dr., Youngsville, NC 27596. (Stouch, L.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:19-CV-159-BO
NICOLE RUBY BRIDGEWATER,
Plaintiff,
V.

5800 SEWARD, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court on the memorandum and recommendation by United
States Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II. [DE 4]. On June 10, 2019, Judge Numbers
recommende1 that plaintiff be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis and that her claims be
dismissed. Id. No objections to the M&R have been filed and the matter is ripe for review. For the
reasons that follow, the M&R [DE 4] is ADOPTED and plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED as
frivolous.
BACKGROUND
In April 2019, plaintiff filed a pro se application to proceed in forma pauper is under 28
U.S. C. § 1915. [DE 1]. Plaintiff alleges that there is an improper cloud over the title to the property
at 183 Mill Creek Drive in Youngsville, North Carolina. She alleges that defendant took improper
actions in relation to the property's mortgage note and deed, that defendant did not follow its own
load procedures, and that defendant violated her constitutional rights and defrauded her. In June
2019, Judge Numbers entered the instant memorandum and recommendation (M&R), granting
plaintiffs application to proceed informa pauperis and recommending that plaintiffs claims be

dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). [DE 4]. Plaintiff did not timely file a
response to the M&R.
DISCUSSION
A district court is required to review de nova those portions of an M&R to which a party
timely files specific objections or where there is plain error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b )(1 ); Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). "[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need
not conduct de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the
face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins.
Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

No party has objected to the M&R and the time for doing so has passed. The Court has
reviewed the M&R and is satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record.
Accordingly, the memorandum and recommendation is ADOPTED.
CONCLUSION
'

The memorandum and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Numbers [DE 4] is
ADOPTED and plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED, this_/_ day of July, 2019.

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2