Perez v. Nichols Food Service, Inc., et al.
ORDER adopting 14 Memorandum and Recommendations. The answer filed on behalf of the corporate defendants in this matter is hereby STRICKEN. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 1/10/2018. Copy of certified order sent to James L. Nichols via US Mail to 476 Woodland Church Rd., Albertson, NC 28508. (Stouch, L.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA,
Secretary of Labor, United States
Department of Labor,
NICHOLS FOOD SERVICE, INC. et al.,
This cause comes before the Court on entry of a memorandum and recommendation by
United States Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). No objections to the
memorandum and recommendation have been filed, and the matter is ripe for review.
This action, arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29
U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., was instituted by the Secretary of Labor against James L. Nichols and
several corporate entities on January 13, 2017. On October 3, 2017, Magistrate Judge Numbers
entered a notice of deficiency regarding the answer filed by defendants.
Nichols, an individual who is not an attorney admitted to practice in this Court, had filed the
answer on behalf of himself and the corporate defendants. Magistrate Judge Numbers ordered
that counsel for the corporate defendants must appear not later than October 20, 2017, and
further notified defendants that sanctions may be imposed for failing to comply with the
deficiency order. On November 20, 2017, Magistrate Judge Numbers held a show cause hearing
after no counsel had appeared on behalf of the corporate defendants.
On November 22, 2017, Magistrate Judge Numbers entered the instant memorandum and
recommendation (M&R), recommending that the answer filed on behalf of the corporate
defendants be stricken as such defendants are not permitted to appear pro se.
A district court is required to review de novo 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)(l); 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.
The memorandum and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Numbers is ADOPTED.
The answer filed on behalf of the corporate defendants in this matter is hereby STRICKEN.
SO ORDERED, this _/J2day of January, 2018.
T RRENCE W. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRIC
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?