Polidi v. Boston

E.D. North Carolina

Polidi v. Boston

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina

DecidedJune 4, 2025

Docket5:24-cv-00246

StatusUnknown

This text of Polidi v. Boston (Polidi v. Boston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Polidi v. Boston, (E.D.N.C. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION Case No. 5:24-CV-00246-M RICHARD POLIDI, ) Plaintiff, V. ORDER BOSTON et al., Defendants. ) □□ This matter comes before the court on the memorandum and recommendation (the ‘“Recommendation’’) entered by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank in this case on November 26, 2024 [DE 17]. In the Recommendation, Judge Swank recommends that the court dismiss Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice. DE 17 at 2. The Recommendation, along with instructions and a deadline for filing objections, was served on the parties on November 26. See id. at 3. Plaintiff objected to the Recommendation and the United States filed a response. DE 18; DE 19. A magistrate judge’s recommendation carries no presumptive weight. See United States ex rel. Wheeler v. Acadia Healthcare Co., Inc., 127 F.4th 472, 486 (4th Cir. 2025). 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). “The Federal Magistrates Act only requires district courts to ‘make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.’” Osmon v. United States, 66 F.4th 144, 146 (4th Cir. 2023) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). And “a party’s objection to a magistrate judge’s report [must] be specific and

particularized.” United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621 (4th Cir. 2007). 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). Upon de novo review of the Recommendation and the record presented, the court ADOPTS the Recommendation of Judge Swank [DE 17] as its own. For the reasons stated therein, Plaintiffs Complaint [DE 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED this gle _ day of June, 2025.

RICHARD E. MYERS ii CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION Case No. 5:24-CV-00246-M RICHARD POLIDI, ) Plaintiff, V. ORDER BOSTON et al., Defendants. ) □□ This matter comes before the court on the memorandum and recommendation (the ‘“Recommendation’’) entered by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank in this case on November 26, 2024 [DE 17]. In the Recommendation, Judge Swank recommends that the court dismiss Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice. DE 17 at 2. The Recommendation, along with instructions and a deadline for filing objections, was served on the parties on November 26. See id. at 3. Plaintiff objected to the Recommendation and the United States filed a response. DE 18; DE 19. A magistrate judge’s recommendation carries no presumptive weight. See United States ex rel. Wheeler v. Acadia Healthcare Co., Inc., 127 F.4th 472, 486 (4th Cir. 2025). 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). “The Federal Magistrates Act only requires district courts to ‘make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.’” Osmon v. United States, 66 F.4th 144, 146 (4th Cir. 2023) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). And “a party’s objection to a magistrate judge’s report [must] be specific and

particularized.” United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621 (4th Cir. 2007). 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). Upon de novo review of the Recommendation and the record presented, the court ADOPTS the Recommendation of Judge Swank [DE 17] as its own. For the reasons stated therein, Plaintiffs Complaint [DE 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED this gle _ day of June, 2025.

RICHARD E. MYERS ii CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Polidi v. Boston, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/polidi-v-boston-nced-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack