Lincoln F. Payne v. National Jewelry & Pawn, Inc. and Thomas J. Kim, a/k/a Tom Kim, and First Cash, Inc.

M.D. North Carolina

Lincoln F. Payne v. National Jewelry & Pawn, Inc. and Thomas J. Kim, a/k/a Tom Kim, and First Cash, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina

DecidedMarch 12, 2026

Docket1:25-cv-00024

StatusUnknown

This text of Lincoln F. Payne v. National Jewelry & Pawn, Inc. and Thomas J. Kim, a/k/a Tom Kim, and First Cash, Inc. (Lincoln F. Payne v. National Jewelry & Pawn, Inc. and Thomas J. Kim, a/k/a Tom Kim, and First Cash, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lincoln F. Payne v. National Jewelry & Pawn, Inc. and Thomas J. Kim, a/k/a Tom Kim, and First Cash, Inc., (M.D.N.C. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

LINCOLN F. PAYNE, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-cv-00024 NATIONAL JEWELRY & PAWN, INC. and THOMAS J. KIM, a/k/a Tom Kim, and FIRST CASH, Inc.,

Defendants. ORDER Pending is Defendant Thomas Kim’s Motion to Dismiss All Claims Against Him Contained in the Amended Complaint [ECF 32], filed August 14, 2025. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Joi Elizabeth Peake, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of an Order and Recommendation (“O&R”). Magistrate Judge Peake filed her O&R on February 18, 2026. [ECF 45]. Magistrate Judge Peake recommended the Court GRANT Mr. Kim’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF 32]. The Court need not review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the order or recommendation to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of 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.” (emphasis added)). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Petitioner’s right to appeal the Court’s order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. De Leon- Ramirez, 925 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2019) (Parties may not typically “appeal a magistrate judge’s findings that were not objected to below, as § 636(b) doesn’t require de novo review absent objection.”); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989). Further, the Court need not conduct de novo review 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.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Objections in this case were due on March 9, 2025. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the O&R [ECF 45], GRANTS Defendant Kim’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF 32], and ORDERS the parties to comply with the directives and deadlines earlier imposed by Magistrate Judge Peake. [ECF 45]. The case is referred anew to Magistrate Judge Peake in accordance with the original referral. The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: March 12, 2026

“ams” Chief United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

LINCOLN F. PAYNE, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-cv-00024 NATIONAL JEWELRY & PAWN, INC. and THOMAS J. KIM, a/k/a Tom Kim, and FIRST CASH, Inc.,

Defendants. ORDER Pending is Defendant Thomas Kim’s Motion to Dismiss All Claims Against Him Contained in the Amended Complaint [ECF 32], filed August 14, 2025. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Joi Elizabeth Peake, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of an Order and Recommendation (“O&R”). Magistrate Judge Peake filed her O&R on February 18, 2026. [ECF 45]. Magistrate Judge Peake recommended the Court GRANT Mr. Kim’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF 32]. The Court need not review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the order or recommendation to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of 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.” (emphasis added)). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Petitioner’s right to appeal the Court’s order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. De Leon- Ramirez, 925 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2019) (Parties may not typically “appeal a magistrate judge’s findings that were not objected to below, as § 636(b) doesn’t require de novo review absent objection.”); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989). Further, the Court need not conduct de novo review 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.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Objections in this case were due on March 9, 2025. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the O&R [ECF 45], GRANTS Defendant Kim’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF 32], and ORDERS the parties to comply with the directives and deadlines earlier imposed by Magistrate Judge Peake. [ECF 45]. The case is referred anew to Magistrate Judge Peake in accordance with the original referral. The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: March 12, 2026

“ams” Chief United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lincoln F. Payne v. National Jewelry & Pawn, Inc. and Thomas J. Kim, a/k/a Tom Kim, and First Cash, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lincoln-f-payne-v-national-jewelry-pawn-inc-and-thomas-j-kim-aka-ncmd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack