Jonathan Wynn v. Champion Homes and Thaddeus Shipman

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION Case No. 7:26-CV-00199-M-RJ JONATHAN WYNN, Plaintiff, v. ORDER CHAMPION HOMES and THADDEUS SHIPMAN, Defendants.

This matter comes before the court on the Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) prepared by United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. DE 5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), Judge Jones allowed Plaintiff to proceed without paying a filing fee, recommended dismissing Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Shipman, and recommended allowing Plaintiffs claim against Defendant Champion Homes to proceed. DE 5. Plaintiff has filed a document which concedes to Judge Jones’ recommendations and further requests certain evidentiary measures. DE 6. 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.” Jd. § 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). Plaintiff has not objected to Judge Jones’ recommendations, so the court has reviewed those recommendations for clear error and, finding none, adopts them as its own. DE 5. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Shipman is DISMISSED. Additionally, Plaintiff's filing contains requests for evidentiary measures best addressed during discovery. See DE 6 at 1 (requesting to depose and serve interrogatories on Defendant Shipman and seeking to “make a motion for [certain] hiring records . . . so they may be entered as evidence”). Those requests are improperly brought in a document containing Plaintiffs objections, or lack thereof, to the M&R, and, as such, this court will not address them. Should Plaintiff file motions seeking that relief, then the court will consider those motions at the appropriate time. SO ORDERED this oil __ day of May, 2026. al Svea RICHARD B£.. WYERS Vi CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE