Yarborough v. Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION Case No. 5:24-CV-00274-M-RN ERNEST YARBOROUGH, ) Plaintiff, V. ORDER HILTON WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS INC., ET AL., ) Defendant. a) This matter comes before the court on the Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) entered by Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II in this case on August 12, 2024. DE 9. Inthe M&R, Judge Numbers recommends that the court grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. DE 23 at 1,4. The M&R, along with instructions and a deadline for filing objections, was served on Plaintiff on August 12, 2024. See id. at 4-5. Plaintiff raised no objection to the M&R. 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.” Jd. § 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). 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, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [DE 6] is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

SOORDERED this |2 day of September, 2024.

iho ELV i t yYws — RICHARD E. MYERS II CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE