govinfo:USCOURTS-ncwd-1_25-cv-00297-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
ASHEVILLE DIVISION 
 CIVIL CASE NO. 1:25-cv-00297-MR-WCM 
 
 
SHARONDA SCOTT, ) 
 ) 
 Plaintiff, ) 
 ) 
 vs . ) O R D E R 
 ) 
DEBRISTECH, LLC, ) 
 ) 
 Defendant. ) 
________________________________ ) 
 
 THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to 
Dismiss [Doc. 5] and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and 
Recommendation [Doc. 11] regarding the disposition of the Motion to 
Dismiss. 
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and the standing Orders of Designation 
of this Court, the Honorable W. Carleton Metcalf, United States Magistrate 
Judge, was designated to consider the above -referenced motion and to 
submit a recommendation for its disposition. 
On May 6, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Memorandum and 
Recommendation, recommending that the Motion to Dismiss be granted in 
part and denied in part. [Doc. 11 at 13]. The parties were advised that any 
objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation 

2 
 
were to be filed in writing within fourteen (14) days of service. [Id. at 14]. On 
May 20, 2026, the Defendant filed an objection requesting that the Court 
reject the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition and dismiss the 
Plaintiff’s N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-28.2 claim. [Doc. 12]. On June 11, 2026, the 
Plaintiff filed an objection requesting that the Court reject the recommended 
disposition and deny the Motion to Dismiss as to the defamation and 
intrusion upon seclusion claims. [Doc. 17].1 
 The Plaintiff’s objection also contains a request for leave to amend the 
Complaint. [Doc. 17 at 5]. The Plaintiff’s request is denied. The Plaintiff had 
twenty-one days from the filing of the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss to file 
an amended complaint as of right and to address any deficiencies identified 
by the Defendant in its motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B). Despite 
having the unilateral right to do so, the Plaintiff failed to amend her Complaint 
within the time required. Having failed to amend her Complaint and to 
address the deficiencies identified by the Defendant, the Plaint iff left the 
Court with no option but to address the Defendant’s motion on its merits. In 
doing so, the Magistrate Judge engaged in a thorough analysis of the 
Plaintiff’s claims and the factual allegations made in support thereof. The 
 
1 The Plaintiff’s objection was not timely in that it was filed nineteen days past the deadline 
set forth in the Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The Court 
has nonetheless addressed the issues raise therein. 

3 
 
Plaintiff cannot now attempt to circumvent the Magistrate Judge’s 
recommendation by seeking to amend her Complaint. See Laschober v. 
Ammons, No. 1:21-cv-00107-MR-WCM, 2022 WL 822165, at *2 (W.D.N.C. 
Mar. 18, 2022). Allowing the amendment would reduce the Magistrate 
Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation to nothing more than an 
advisory opinion to assist the parties through the pleading stage. 
Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s request to amend her Complaint is denied. 
After a careful review of the Memorandum and Recommendation, the 
Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s proposed conclusions of law 
are correct and consistent with current case law. Accordingly, the Court 
overrules the objections and accepts the Magistrate Judge’s 
recommendations that the Motion to Dismiss be granted in part. 
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Memorandum and 
Recommendation [Doc. 11] is ACCEPTED. 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 
[Doc. 5] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART . The Motion is 
DENIED as to the N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-28.2 claim. The Motion is GRANTED 
as to all other claims. 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend 
contained in her Objection is DENIED. 

4 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
 
 
 
Signed: June 13, 2026 

Passage view · GavelSight