EPCON COMMUNITIES CAROLINAS, LLC et al v. TILLEY, et al

Filing 74

ORDER signed by JUDGE N. C. TILLEY, JR on 3/28/2013 adopting the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation [Doc. # 58 ]; that Plaintiffs' Motions to Dismiss [Doc. # 41 , # 47 ] are therefore GRANTED, and the Tilley Defendants' Counterclaims [Doc. # 39 , # 44 ] are DISMISSED. (Sheets, Jamie)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
EPCON COMMUNITIES
CAROLINAS, LLC and
EPCON FARRINGTON, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.
IRIS M. TILLEY, individually and as
TRUSTEE pursuant to the Tilley Six Trust
(dated) September 17, 1993; THOMAS E.
TILLEY, individually and as TRUSTEE
pursuant to the B&R Farms Trust dated
September 19, 1993; MELBA GEORGE,
individually and as TRUSTEE of the Epcon
Farm Trust; BARBARA WRIGHT,
individually and as TRUSTEE of the Epcon
Farm Trust, and the UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11CV643

ORDER
Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint [Doc. # 18] on October 14, 2011.
Defendants Iris M. Tilley and Thomas E. Tilley (the “Tilley Defendants”) filed pro se
counterclaims [Doc. # 39, 44] against the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have moved to
dismiss each of these counterclaims [Doc. # 41, # 47].
On January 23, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Recommendation [Doc.
# 58] that the Plaintiffs’ motions to dismiss be granted. The Tilley Defendants
timely objected [Doc. # 62], and the Plaintiffs timely responded [Doc. # 73].
A court is not required to conduct a de novo review where objections to the

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are general and conclusory. See Orpiano
v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir.1982) (citing United States v. Merz, 376
U.S. 192 (1964)). In this case, the Tilley Defendants’ objections do not even rise
to the level of general and conclusory. As with the majority of their filings, a
significant portion of the objection is incoherent, and to the extent that it can be
understood, it is generally facially frivolous. See, e.g., Doc. # 62 at 5 (claiming
that “All ‘[Court or Statutory]’ Rules Are Invalid - [As they Apply to the people,
ANY of Them]”) (alterations and emphasis in original).
Notwithstanding the Tilley Defendants’ failure to object properly, and in
consideration of the fact they are proceeding pro se, the Court did perform a de
novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation. Based on this review,
the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to be an accurate
reflection of the law. The Recommendation [Doc. # 58] is therefore adopted in
full. The Plaintiffs’ Motions to Dismiss [Doc. # 41, # 47] are therefore GRANTED,
and the Tilley Defendants’ Counterclaims [Doc. # 39, # 44] are DISMISSED.
This the 28th day of March, 2013.
/s/ N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge