Corpus: 543,223 opinions · 3,177 judges · newest 2026-06-23 · expanding Coverage ↗
Opinion

govinfo:USCOURTS-ncmd-1_26-cv-00095-1

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina · 2026-05-14

· GavelSight synced 2026-09-06 03:52:39

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
 
JOSE RAMON PEDRAZA, 
 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
LESLIE DISMUKES, et al., 
 
 
 Defendant. 
 
 
 
 
 1:26-CV-95-DAB-JGM 
 
 
 ORDER 
 This matter is before the Court for review of the Order and Recommendation 
filed on April 17, 2026. (D.E. 8.) The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing 
Petitioner’s petition as time barred. The deadline for objections passed on May 4, 
2026, and no parties have objected to the Recommendation. 
 Because there are no objections, the Court “must ‘only satisfy itself that there 
is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’” 
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting 
Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 72 advisory committee’s note). This Court has accordingly 
reviewed the Recommendation and concludes it contains no clear error. 
 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation 
(D.E. 8) is ADOPTED1 and this action is DISMISSED. 
 A Judgment dismissing this action will be entered contemporaneously with 
this Order. 
This the 14th day of May, 2026. 
 
 /s/ David A. Bragdon 
 United States District Judge 
 
1 The Court refrains from adopting footnote 2. (D.E. 8.) 

Passage view · GavelSight