Vitalia v. Trans Union, LLC et al

Filing 54

ORDER granting 38 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; adopting 50 Memorandum and Recommendations.. Signed by Senior Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 01/06/2025. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(mdp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:23-cv-00731-RJC-DCK
PAPA G VITALIA,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
TRANS UNION, LLC et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant USAA Federal Savings
Bank’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Doc. No. 38), and the Magistrate
Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”), (Doc. No. 50), recommending
that this Court grant Defendant’s motion. 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
1

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 and conclusory objections that do not direct
the court to a specific error in the magistrate’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. 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.
The Court notes that Defendant filed the pending Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings on March 13, 2024. (Doc. No. 38). On October 24, 2024, the Court referred
the motion to the Magistrate Judge, and the Magistrate Judge issued a Roseboro
Order advising Plaintiff that he shall file a response to the pending motion on or
before November 8, 2024. (Doc. No. 49). On November 21, 2024, following the

2

Magistrate Judge’s issuance of the M&R, the Roseboro Order was returned as
undeliverable. (Doc. No. 51). The Court observes that no response or any other filing
has been made by Plaintiff in this case since February 9, 2024 – the day his attorney
withdrew from representation. (Doc. No. 34). Plaintiff’s former counsel, Mr. M. Shane
Perry, withdrew pursuant to Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16 and provided the
Court Plaintiff’s last known address. (Id.). Since then, at least three documents
mailed to Plaintiff have been returned as undeliverable. (Doc. Nos. 36, 44, 51).
Plaintiff’s failure to make any filing with the Court since at least February 2024 or
to keep the Court apprised of any changes in his mailing address suggests that
Plaintiff may have abandoned his claims. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th
Cir. 1988) (“A party, not the district court, bears the burden of keeping the
court apprised of any changes in his mailing address.”).
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. 50), is ADOPTED;
2. Defendant USAA Federal Savings Bank’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings, (Doc. No. 38), is GRANTED.

3

Signed: January 6, 2025

4