Williams v. Wilson

E.D. North Carolina

Williams v. Wilson

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina

DecidedJune 3, 2025

Docket5:25-cv-00102

StatusUnknown

This text of Williams v. Wilson (Williams v. Wilson) 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

Williams v. Wilson, (E.D.N.C. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION Case No. 5:25-CV-00102-M-RJ JESSICA WILLIAMS, ) Plaintiff, V. ORDER KRISTI WILSON, U.S.D.A. Rural Development, ) Defendant. oo) This matter comes before the court on the memorandum and recommendation (the “Recommendation”) entered by Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. in this case on April 15, 2025 [DE 16]. Inthe Recommendation, Judge Jones recommends that the court dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. DE 16 at 1, 6. The Recommendation, along with instructions and a deadline for filing objections, was served on the Plaintiff on April 15. See id. at 7. Plaintiff did not object to the Recommendation. See Docket Entries dated April 15, 2025, to present. 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). This is a low bar, particularly when the plaintiff is pro se. Elijah v. Dunbar, 66 F.4th 454, 460 (4th Cir. 2023); Erickson y. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). But 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 careful review of the Recommendation and the record presented, and finding no clear error, the court ADOPTS the Recommendation of Judge Jones [DE 16] as its own. For the reasons stated therein, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [DE 12] is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED this __8_—_ day of June, 2025. ee Ndawel Tas ee 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. 5:25-CV-00102-M-RJ JESSICA WILLIAMS, ) Plaintiff, V. ORDER KRISTI WILSON, U.S.D.A. Rural Development, ) Defendant. oo) This matter comes before the court on the memorandum and recommendation (the “Recommendation”) entered by Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. in this case on April 15, 2025 [DE 16]. Inthe Recommendation, Judge Jones recommends that the court dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. DE 16 at 1, 6. The Recommendation, along with instructions and a deadline for filing objections, was served on the Plaintiff on April 15. See id. at 7. Plaintiff did not object to the Recommendation. See Docket Entries dated April 15, 2025, to present. 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). This is a low bar, particularly when the plaintiff is pro se. Elijah v. Dunbar, 66 F.4th 454, 460 (4th Cir. 2023); Erickson y. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). But 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 careful review of the Recommendation and the record presented, and finding no clear error, the court ADOPTS the Recommendation of Judge Jones [DE 16] as its own. For the reasons stated therein, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [DE 12] is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED this __8_—_ day of June, 2025. ee Ndawel Tas ee RICHARD E. MYERS II CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Williams v. Wilson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-wilson-nced-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack