May et al v. Martin Fein Interest Ltd. et al

Filing 170

ORDER adopting 167 Memorandum and Recommendation and granting 149 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Chief U.S. District Judge Richard E. Myers II on 3/27/2024. (McNally, Kimberly)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
Case No. 5:21-CV-00083-M-RJ
RAYMOND EARL MAY, JR. and
ANGELA DOLORES MAY,
Plaintiffs,
ORDER
V.

MARTIN FEIN INTEREST LTD.,
Defendant.

This matter comes before the court for review of the Memorandum and Recommendation
(the "Recommendation") filed on February 29, 2024, by Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr., in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). DE 167. In the Recommendation, Judge Jones recommends
that the court grant Defendant Martin Fein Interest Ltd.' s motion for summary judgment [DE 149].
Id. at 1, 25 . The Recommendation was served on the parties on February 29, 2024. See id. at 25-

26. Plaintiff filed an Objection outside the time permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
along with a request that the court consider the untimely filing on the basis of "Excusable Neglect."
DE 168 at 1. 1

Given the case-dispositive nature of the summary judgment motion and

Recommendation, Plaintiffs' pro se status, and their averred health issues, the court will consider
the Objection.
A magistrate judge's recommendation carries no presumptive weight. The court "may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the ... recommendation[] . . . receive further evidence

1

Plaintiffs also request "a stay on the summary j udgment ruling and Order," DE 168 at 3, citing an inapposite
Federa l Rule of Civil Procedure, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(a) (providing for automatic stays of executions of judgments
and proceedings to enforce judgments). That request is denied.

or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." 28 U.S .C. § 636(b)(l); accord

Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 271 (1976). The court "shall make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection
is made." Id. § 636(b )(1 ). Absent a specific and timely objection, the court reviews only for "clear
error" and need not give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Diamond v. Colonial

Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,3 15 (4th Cir. 2005).
Plaintiffs' Objection does not identify any error in the Magistrate Judge 's reasoning. See
DE 168 at 2 (arguing only generally that "Plaintiffs deserve and have the right for them to present
their case and be tried by a Judge or jury"). Such an objection does not entitle Plaintiffs to de novo
review. Accordingly, the court has carefully reviewed the Recommendation and the record for
clear error and finds none. The court therefore ADOPTS the Recommendation [DE 167] and
GRANTS Defendant's summary judgment motion [DE 149]. The Clerk of Court is directed to
close this case.

SO ORDERED this

~
'27 day of March, 2024.

RICHARD E. MYERS II
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE