govinfo:USCOURTS-ncwd-1_25-cv-00350-1

-1- 
 
  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
ASHEVILLE DIVISION 
1:25-cv-350-MOC-WCM 
 
 
THIS MATTER is before the Court on review of a Memorandum and Recommendation 
issued in this matter. See (Doc. No. 21). In the Memorandum and Recommendation, the 
magistrate judge recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to 
Amend/Correct Complaint (Doc. No. 19) and the magistrate judge further recommended that the 
Court dismiss this matter without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See (Doc. No. 
21 at 4). The magistrate judge advised the parties of the right to file objections within 14 days, all 
in accordance with 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(c). No objections have been filed 
within the time allowed. 
I. Applicable Standard of Review 
The Federal Magistrates Act of 1979, as amended, provides that “a district court shall 
make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specific proposed findings or 
recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 
198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). However, “when objections to strictly legal issues are raised and no 
factual issues are challenged, de novo review of the record may be dispensed with.” Orpiano v. 
WILLIAM YELTON, )  
 )  
Plaintiff, )  
 )  
vs. ) ORDER 
 )  
LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC, 
 
) 
) 
 
Defendant. )  
Case 1:25-cv-00350-MOC-WCM     Document 23     Filed 04/07/26     Page 1 of 2
 
-2- 
 
Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Similarly, de novo review is not required by the statute 
“when a party makes general or conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific 
error in the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Id. Moreover, the 
statute does not on its face require any review at all of issues that are not the subject of an 
objection. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Camby, 718 F.2d at 200. Nonetheless, a 
district judge is responsible for the final determination and outcome of the case, and accordingly 
the Court has conducted a careful review of the magistrate judge’s recommendation.  
II. Discussion 
After careful review, the Court determines that the recommendation of the magistrate 
judge is consistent with other decisions in this district. Further, the brief factual background and 
recitation of issues is supported by the applicable pleadings. Based on such determinations, the 
Court will affirm the Memorandum and Recommendation and grant relief in accordance 
therewith.       
ORDER 
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Memorandum and Recommendation (Doc. 
No. 21) is AFFIRMED, and Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint (Doc. 
No. 19), is DENIED. This matter is HEREBY DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of 
subject matter jurisdiction. 
  
 
Signed: April 6, 2026 
Case 1:25-cv-00350-MOC-WCM     Document 23     Filed 04/07/26     Page 2 of 2

Passage view · GavelSight