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.)

Download PDF
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

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?