Walker et al v. SGB Corporation et al

Filing 46

ORDER granting 25 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 37 Motion to Dismiss ; affirming 45 Memorandum and Recommendations.; granting 20 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Clerk is directed to close this case.. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 7/11/16. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(ssh)

ffs,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:15-cv-00607-RJC-DCK
ELIJAH WALKER and CRYSTAL WALKER, )
)
Plaintiffs
)
)
v.
)
)
SGB CORPORATION d/b/a WEST AMERICA )
MORTGAGE COMPANY, GOVERNMENT
)
NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION
)
a/k/a GINNIE MAE REMIC TRUST 2005-028, )
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
)
REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC. a/k/a MERS, )
RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT
)
SERVICES, LLC, DOES 1–100, and
)
CITIMORTGAGE, INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants Citimortgage, Inc. and MERS’
Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 20); Defendant Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC’s
Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 25); Defendant SGB Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No.
37); and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”), (Doc. No. 45);
recommending that this Court grant the defendants’ motions. The parties have not filed objections
to the M&R and the time for doing so has expired. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
I.

BACKGROUND
No party has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s statement of the factual and procedural

background of this case. Therefore, the Court adopts the facts as set forth in the M&R.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
A district court may assign dispositive pretrial matters, including motions to dismiss, to a

magistrate judge for “proposed findings of fact and recommendations.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)

& (B).

The Federal Magistrate Act provides that a district 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)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). However, “when
objections to strictly legal issues are raised and no factual issues are challenged, de novo review
of the record may be dispensed with.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). De
novo review is also not required “when a party makes general or conclusory objections that do not
direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and
recommendations.” Id. Similarly, when no objection is filed, “a district court need not conduct a
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) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, advisory committee note).
III.

DISCUSSION
Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court judge shall make

a de novo determination of any portion of an M&R to which specific written objection has been
made. A party’s failure to make a timely objection is accepted as an agreement with the
conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985). No
objection to the M&R having been filed, and the time for doing so having passed, the parties have
waived their right to de novo review of any issue covered in the M&R. Nevertheless, this Court
has conducted a full review of the M&R and other documents of record and, having done so,
hereby finds that the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is, in all respects, in accordance
with the law and should be approved. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge as its own.

IV.

CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The Magistrate Judge’s M&R, (Doc. No. 45), is ADOPTED;
2. Citimortgage, Inc. and MERS’ Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 20), is GRANTED;
3. Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 25), is
GRANTED;
4. SGB Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 37), is GRANTED;
5. Plaintiffs’ Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice; and
6. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

Signed: July 11, 2016