Ayesha Q. Sanders v. Tata Consultancy Services; Tata Consultancy Services...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:25-CV-267-BO-BM AYESHA Q. SANDERS ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) V. ) ) GRDER TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES; ) TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES ) LIMITED; and TATA AMERICA ) INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, ) ) Defendants. ) This cause comes before the Court on the memorandum and recommendation (M&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Brian S. Meyers. [DE 25]. Magistrate Judge Meyers recommends that plaintiff's motion to remand [DE 12] be granted and the case be remanded in its entirety to Wake County Superior Court in North Carolina. Magistrate Judge Meyers also recommends the Court deny as moot (i) plaintiff's amended motion to remand [DE 21]; and (ii) defendants’ motion to stay or extend for purposes of filing a response to plaintiff's amended complaint [DE 18]; and that the Court deny without prejudice as moot (iii) defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of jurisdiction [DE 13]. No party has filed an objection to the M&R, and the time for doing so has expired.

“The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make ade: novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge’s report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (cleaned up) (emphasis omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A party’s objections must be made “with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection.” United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007). Where no specific objections have been filed, the court reviews for clear error only. Dunlap v. TM Trucking of the Carolinas, LLC, 288 F. Supp. 3d 654, 662 (D.S.C. 2017). On clear error review, the court has no obligation to explain its reasoning for adopting the recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983).

The Court has reviewed the M&R for clear error and finds none. Accordingly, the M&R [DE 25] is ADOPTED in full. Plaintiff's motion to remand [DE 12] is GRANTED; the case shall be remanded in its entirety to the Superior Court for Wake County, North Carolina. Plaintiff's amended motion to remand [DE 21] is DENIED AS MOOT; defendants’ motion to stay or extend [DE 18] is DENIED AS MOOT; and defendants’ motion to dismiss [DE 13] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT.

SO ORDERED, this ZF day of March 2026.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUD