Wilkes v. Hilton Inns

District Court, E.D. North Carolina

Wilkes v. Hilton Inns

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION

NO. 5:25-CV-157-FL

DR. GWENDOLYN DIANNE WILKES ) and PEOPLE IMPROVING PERPETUITY ) AKA P.I.P., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) HILTON INNS DBA HAMPTON INNS, ) STATE FARM INS. CORP., and VINCENT ) BOONE AGENCY, ) ) Defendants. )

This matter is before the court to address plaintiff’s failure to correct deficiencies as set forth in the court’s March 25, 2025, order. (DE 3). United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr., entered memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”), pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), wherein it is recommended plaintiffs’ action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to respond to the court’s order. Plaintiffs did not file objections to the M&R, and the time within which to make any objection has expired. In this posture, the issues raised are ripe for ruling. Upon a careful review of the M&R, the court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1). Because no objections have been filed, the court reviews the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions for clear error, and need not give any explanation for adopting the M&R. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co.,

416 F.3d 310, 315

(4th Cir. 2005); Camby v. Davis,

718 F.2d 198, 200

(4th Cir. 1983). Upon careful review of the M&R, the court finds the magistrate judge’s analysis to be correct. The court ADOPTS the recommendation of the magistrate judge as its own. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to respond to the court’s order and failure to prosecute. The clerk of court is DIRECTED to close the case. SO ORDERED, this the 27th day of May, 2025.

United States District Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown