Ronald Satish Emrit v. United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), ef al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION Case No. 5:25-CV-00181-M-KS RONALD SATISH EMRIT, Plaintiff, V. ORDER UNITED STATES PATENT and TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO), ef al., Defendants.

This matter comes before the court on the Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank [DE 12]. Judge Swank recommends that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to cure numerous identified filing deficiencies. /d. at 1; see also DE 3. The M&R, along with instructions and a deadline for filing objections, was served on the parties on September 23, 2025. See id. Neither party filed a timely objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation carries no presumptive weight. The court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the . .. recommendation[ ] . . . receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); accord Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 271 (1976). The court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Jd. § 636(b)(1). Absent a specific and timely objection, the court reviews only for “clear error” and need not give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).

Upon careful review of the M&R and the record presented, and finding no clear error, the court ADOPTS the recommendation of the magistrate judge as its own. See Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315. For the reasons stated therein, Plaintiff's complaint [DE 1] is DISMISSED WTIHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

st SO ORDERED this 2[ day of October, 2025.

RICHARD E. MYERS II CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE