Miller v. Walmart Inc.

• Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
• Decided: August 8, 2025
• Docket: 5:24-cv-00606
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION Case No. 5:24-CV-00606-M-RJ LANEISHA MICHELLE MILLER, ) Plaintiff, V. ORDER WALMART INC., et al., ) ) Defendant. ) ee This matter comes before the court on the Memorandum and Recommendation (““M&R”) entered by Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. in this case on July 7, 2025. [DE 23]. Judge Jones recommends that the court grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [DE 13] for failure of process and lack of personal jurisdiction and deny as moot Defendants’ remaining Motions to Dismiss [DE 14, 19]. Neither party filed an objection in the time allotted, so the matter is ripe for review. I. Standard of Review 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.” Id. § 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). Under § 636(b)(1), the party’s objections to the M&R must be “specific and particularized” to facilitate district court review. United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 606, 621 (4th Cir. 2007). On the other hand, “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error” in the M&R fall short of this standard. See Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982) (concluding that de novo review was still required under these decisions where a pro se litigant had objected to specific factual findings in the M&R). 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, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [DE 13] is GRANTED, and the remaining two Motions to Dismiss [DE 14, 19] are DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff's claims are hereby DISMISSED, and the clerk is DIRECTED to close the case.

SO ORDERED this ah day of August, 2025.

Agi IV ’\yawe RICHARD E. MYERS Ti CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE