Branden Hargrove Estate v. Fred Anderson Toyota of Sanford and Regional Acceptance Corporation

• Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
• Decided: October 24, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-00322
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:25-CV-322-BO-KS

BRANDEN HARGROVE ESTATE, ) Plaintiff, V. ORDER FRED ANDERSON TOYOTA OF SANFORD and REGIONAL ) ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, ) Defendants.

This cause comes before the Court on the memorandum and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kimberly Swank regarding plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has objected to the memorandum and recommendation (M&R) and moved to amend his complaint. The M&R recommends denial of plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis because, in the original complaint, the plaintiff is listed as Branden Hargrove Estate, and an estate is not a natural person that qualifies for pauper status. [DE 5]. In response, plaintiff moved for leave to amend his complaint in order to proceed as himself, Branden Hargrove, as the proper party plaintiff. Amendment of the complaint is permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), and plaintiff's motion for leave to amend [DE 6] is GRANTED. The clerk is DIRECTED to file the amended complaint at [DE 6-1]. Accordingly, the M&R [DE 5] is REJECTED as MOOT as an amended complaint has been filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The original motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [DE 2] is DENIED as MOOT, Plaintiff's renewed motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

[DE 9] is GRANTED. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to prepare summonses reflecting the proper party plaintiff and return them to the Clerk of Court for issuance. Once the summonses have been issued, the United States Marshal Service shall effect service on defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3).! Plaintiff's emergency motion for status and request for ruling [DE 14] is DENIED as MOOT.

SO ORDERED, this FS of October 2025.

rad ENCE ‘W. BOYLE ( UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

' The ninety-day period for serving defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) commences on the date of entry of this order granting the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Robinson v. Clipse, 602 F.3d 605, 608 (4th Cir. 2010); Scott v. Maryland State Dep't of Lab., 673 F. App'x 299, 305 (4th Cir. 2016).