Dubar v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. ( 2021 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION Case No. 7:21-cv-00013-M MARIAN DUBAR, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) V. ) ) ORDER WELLS FARGO BANK N.A. and ) HUTCHEN LAW FIRM, ) ) Defendants. ) On February 26, 2021, Magistrate Judge Jones issued a memorandum and recommendation (the in this case. [DE-5] In the M&R, Judge Jones recommends that the court dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court’s order at [DE-4]. The deadline for Plaintiff to object to the M&R has passed, and Plaintiff has not filed any objections. The Fourth Circuit has said: The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge’s report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. By contrast, in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation. Diamond y. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks, brackets, emphases, and citations omitted); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. The court has reviewed the M&R and the record and is satisfied that there is no clear error reflected on the face thereof. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962) (“The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted.”). Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the M&R and DISMISSES Plaintiff's complaint. SOORDERED thisthe & day of Noa 2021. waaay Fo /V\ Uf, RICHARD E. MYERS II CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE