Allen v. Wells Fargo Mortgage Bank, N.A.

• Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
• Decided: July 13, 2022
• Docket: 5:22-cv-00105
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA . WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:22-CV-105-D .

WANDA MARIE ALLEN, ) Phin, ©) v. ORDER

_ WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE □ BANK, N.A., . ) \ Defendant.

On May 16; 2022, plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis □ [D.E. 10]. Pursuant, to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank for a memorandum and recommendation on the plaintiffs motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for a frivolity review [D.E. 9]. On June 20, 2022, Magistrate Judge Swank issueda Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) and recommended that plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that plaintiff be given until July 25, 2022, to pay the requisite fee. See [DE. 18]. On July 11, 2022, plaintiff responded to the M&R and states, “I have agreed to pay the application fee for this case by July 25, 2022.” [D.E. 19]. “The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district — to make a de novo determination of those portions of the Denise judge’s report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 3 10, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (cleaned up); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Absent a timely objection, “a district court need not ponduet 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 Tecommneadationts Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315 (quotation □ (

omitted). Ifa patty makes only general objections, de novo review is not required. See Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1997). In “order to preserve for appeal an issue in a □ magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection.” Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted); see United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007). The court has reviewed the M&R, the record, and plaintiff's response. The court is satisfied __ that there is no clear ae on the face of the record. In sum, the court ADOPTS the M&R [D.E. 18]. Plaintiff SHALL pay the $402.00 filing fee

later than July 25, 2022. If plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee by July 25, 2022, the clerk shall close the case without further order from the court. — . $0 ORDERED. This ‘1g day of July, 2022.

□ rea ao ea . United States District Judge

/ ‘ :