May v. Martin Fein Interest Ltd.

• Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
• Decided: February 9, 2023
• Docket: 5:21-cv-00083
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION □ □ CASE NO. 5:21-CV-00083-M RAYMOND EARL MAY, JR. and, ) □□ ANGELA DOLORES MAY, ) Plaintiffs, ) ORDER ) ) . ) MARTIN FEIN INTEREST LTD., et al., _) ) . Defendants. ) . This matter is before the court on a Memorandum and Recommendation (hereinafter “M&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. dated January 24, 2023 [DE 116] on Plaintiffs’ motion to withdraw proof of service, [DE-103]; Defendants Martin Fein Interest Ltd. (“Martin Fein”), Brenda Hubbard, Katie Nelson, Trevor Stroud, and Desseraye Perry’s (collectively, the “Martin Fein | Defendants”). motion to dismiss, [DE-104]; Defendants Bell Partners, Inc., Invesco Ltd., William

_ Hubbard, Karry Allen, and Meaghan Dawes’s (collectively, the “Bell Partners Defendants”) motion to dismiss, [DE-107]; Plaintiffs’ motion to redline complaint, [DE-109]; and Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss prejudice, [DE-110, DE-112]. Neither party filed objections to the M&R. The matter is ripe for _ □ “The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge’s report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (emphasis, alteration, and quotations omitted); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Absent timely objection, “a court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear on the: face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315 (citation and quotations omitted).

The court has reviewed the M&R and the record in this case and is satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the M&R [DE 116] and for the reasons stated therein ORDERS as follows: .

1. Plaintiffs’-motion to withdraw proof of service, [DE-103], is GRANTED; . 2. Martin Fein Defendants’ motion to dismiss, [DE-104], is DENIED; 3. Bell Partners Defendants’ motion to creme [DE 107], is GRANTED IN PART; 4. Plaintiffs’ motion to redline complaint, [DE-109], is GRANTED;

5. Plaintiffs? oun to dismiss. without prejudice, [DE-110, DE-I 12],isGRANTED. . 6. The time for serving the summonses and complaint is EXTENDED 60 days, up to and □

including April 9, 2023, and the U.S. Marshals Service is DIRECTED to make personal _ service on Defendants upon Plaintiffs” presentation of amended summonses to the Clerk’s

_ Office. □

SOORDERED this 4 □□□ of February, 2023.

pibeel RICHARD E. MYERS II _ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE