Khan v. PNC Bank

Filing 6

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations regarding 5 Memorandum and Recommendations. The clerk of court is DIRECTED to close the case. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 7/3/2024. Copy sent via US mail to Khalid K. Khan at 1345 Lowenstein Street, Wake Forest, NC 27587 (Collins, S)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION NO. 5:24-CV-00226-FL KHALID K. KHAN, Plaintiff, v. PNC BANK, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER This matter is before the court upon review of plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). United States Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II entered memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), wherein it is recommended plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed (DE 5). Plaintiff did not file objections to the M&R, and the time within which to make any objection has expired. In this posture, the issues raised are ripe for ruling. Upon a careful review of the M&R, the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Because no objections have been filed, the court reviews the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions only for clear error, and need not give any explanation for adopting the M&R. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). 1 Here, the magistrate judge recommends dismissal of plaintiff’s federal claim because of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and of plaintiff’s state law claims based upon declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Upon careful review of the M&R, the court finds the magistrate judge’s analysis to be thorough, and there is no clear error. The court hereby ADOPTS the recommendation of the magistrate judge as its own. For the reasons stated therein, plaintiff’s federal claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). The court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims; thus, such claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The clerk of court is DIRECTED to close the case. SO ORDERED, this the 3rd day of July, 2024. _____________________________ LOUISE W. FLANAGAN 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?