UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:23-cv-00378-RJC-SCR

ERICA HORNE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ORDER CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORP., ) ) Defendant. ) )

THIS MATTER is before the Court following pro se Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause entered on November 12, 2024, (Doc. No. 18), Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Lack of Prosecution, (Doc. No. 17), and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”), (Doc. No. 20), recommending that this Court grant Defendant’s motion and dismiss the case with prejudice. The parties have not filed objections to the M&R and the time for doing so has expired. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A district court may assign dispositive pretrial matters, including motions to dismiss, to a magistrate judge for “proposed findings of fact and recommendations.”

(b)(1)(A) & (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.”

§ 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 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. Johnson,

(4th Cir. 1982). De novo review is also not required “when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct

the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.”

Similarly, when no objection is filed, “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 note). III. DISCUSSION

Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court judge shall make a de novo determination of any portion of an M&R to which specific written objection has been made. No objection to the M&R having been filed, and the time for doing so having passed, the parties have waived their right to de novo review of any issue covered in the M&R. Nevertheless, this Court has conducted a full review of the M&R and other documents of record, and having done so, hereby finds that the

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is, in all respects, in accordance with the law and should be approved. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its own. IV. CONCLUSION IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s M&R, (Doc. No. 20), is ADOPTED; 2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 17), is GRANTED, and the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Signed: February 4, 2025

Robert J. Conrad, Jr. cs, United States District Judge at