UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:19-cv-00210-RJC-DSC

YURII KOROTKOV and IRYNA ) PAYLOVNA KOROTKOVA, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) )

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 6), and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”), (Doc. No. 10). I. BACKGROUND On April 1, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendant in the Superior Court of Union County, North Carolina asserting several claims for relief. (Doc. No. 1-1.) On May 1, 2019, Defendant removed the action to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina based on diversity jurisdiction under

. (Doc. No. 1.) Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss on May 22, 2019, seeking dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims for slander of title and fraud. (Doc. No. 6). In the M&R, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this Court grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 10, at 7.) The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of their right to file objections to the M&R within fourteen days, (Doc. No. 10, at 7); however, no objections were filed, and the time for doing so has expired, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The district court may assign dispositive pretrial matters pending before the

court to a magistrate judge for “proposed findings of fact and recommendations.”

(b)(1)(B). The Federal Magistrate Act provides that a district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”

at § 636(b)(1); Camby v. Davis,

(4th Cir. 1983). “[I]n 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 v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). III. DISCUSSION As no objection to the M&R has been made, the parties have waived their right to de novo review of any issues covered in the M&R. After review of the M&R and the entire record, the Court determines that the recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge is fully consistent with and supported by current law. Therefore, the Court adopts the M&R. IV. CONCLUSION IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s M&R, (Doc. No. 10), is ADOPTED, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 6), is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims for slander of title and fraud are dismissed. Signed: October 8, 2019

/ yall ae Robert J. Conrad, Jr. Red. United States District Judge ee