William Yelton v. LoanDepot.com, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION 1:25-cv-350-MOC-WCM WILLIAM YELTON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ORDER ) LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC, ) ) Defendant. ) THIS MATTER is before the Court on review of a Memorandum and Recommendation issued in this matter. See (Doc. No. 21). In the Memorandum and Recommendation, the magistrate judge recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint (Doc. No. 19) and the magistrate judge further recommended that the Court dismiss this matter without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See (Doc. No. at 4). The magistrate judge advised the parties of the right to file objections within 14 days, all in accordance with 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(c). No objections have been filed within the time allowed.

I. Applicable Standard of Review The Federal Magistrates Act of 1979, as amended, provides that “a district court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). 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. -1- Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Similarly, de novo review is not required by the statute “when a party makes general or conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Id. Moreover, the statute does not on its face require any review at all of issues that are not the subject of an objection. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Camby, 718 F.2d at 200. Nonetheless, a district judge is responsible for the final determination and outcome of the case, and accordingly the Court has conducted a careful review of the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

I. Discussion After careful review, the Court determines that the recommendation of the magistrate Judge is consistent with other decisions in this district. Further, the brief factual background and recitation of issues 1s supported by the applicable pleadings. Based on such determinations, the Court will affirm the Memorandum and Recommendation and grant relief in accordance therewith.

ORDER IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Memorandum and Recommendation (Doc.

No. 21) is AFFIRMED, and Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint (Doc.

No. 19), is DENIED. This matter is HEREBY DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Signed: April 6, 2026 i ) evrnna Max O. Cogburn i yg United States District Judge Ea J -2-