Andrew Gluck, Lorraine Meehan, Amy Rosenthal, and Joshua Ravitch v. Raleigh Police Officer D.M. Askegaard, Raleigh Police Officer W.E. Nordstrom, Lt. Halterman, Raleigh Police Officer SGT. DOE #1, Raleigh Police Officer SGT. DOE #2, Raleigh Police Officer DOE #1, Raleigh Police Officer DOE #2, Raleigh Police Officer DOE #3, Younes Zayyad, and Jason Mitchell

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION Case No. 5:25-CV-00664-M-KS ANDREW GLUCK, ) LORRAINE MEEHAN, ) AMY ROSENTHAL, and ) JOSHUA RAVITCH, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) RALEIGH POLICE OFFICER D.M. ) ASKEGAARD, ) RALEIGH POLICE OFFICER W.E. ) NORDSTROM, ) LT. HALTERMAN, ) RALEIGH POLICE OFFICER SGT. DOE _ ) #1, ) RALEIGH POLICE OFFICER SGT. DOE _ ) #2, ) RALEIGH POLICE OFFICER DOE #1, ) RALEIGH POLICE OFFICER DOE #2, ) RALEIGH POLICE OFFICER DOE #3, ) YOUNES ZAYYAD, and ) JASON MITCHELL, ) ) Defendants. )

These matters come before the court on the Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint filed by Defendant Zayyad [DE 34], the Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by Defendants Askegaard, Halterman, and Nordstrom [DE 40], and the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint [DE 58]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), United States Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank entered a memorandum and recommendation (““M&R”), recommending that the court grant the motion to amend and deny the motions to dismiss without prejudice. DE 63. To date, no objections have

been filed.! A magistrate judge’s recommendation carries no presumptive weight. The court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the . .. recommendation[ |... receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); accord Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 271 (1976). The court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” /d. § 636(b)(1). Absent a specific and timely objection, the court reviews only for “clear error” and need not give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). Upon careful review of the M&R and the record presented, and finding no clear error, the court ADOPTS the recommendation of the magistrate judge as its own. For the reasons stated therein, 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint [DE #58] is GRANTED; 2. The Clerk of Court shall file the proposed Second Amended Complaint [DE 58-2] on the case docket;

' Judge Swank issued the M&R on July 21, 2026. Objections were due to be filed on or before August 4, 2026. See DE 63. The motion and M&R were submitted to this court for disposition on August 7, 2026.

3. Defendant Zayyad’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint [DE #34] and Defendant Officers’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint [DE #40] are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot.

SO ORDERED this 14! | day of August, 2026.

RICHARD E. MYERS II CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE