Quincy Benson v. Polyhose, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION No. 7:25-CV-1296 QUINCY BENSON, ) Plaintiff, v. ORDER POLYHOSE, INC., Defendant.

On November 20, 2025, plaintiff filed a motion to reopen case and leave to file a second amended complaint against the defendant [D.E. 18]. On December 17, 2025, the court referred the matter to United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr., for a memorandum and recommendation [D.E. 19]. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

On February 24, 2026, Magistrate Judge Jones issued a memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) [D.E. 20]. In the M&R, Magistrate Judge Jones recommended that the court deny plaintiff’s motion to reopen case and for leave to file a second amended complaint. See id. at 6-7.

“The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de 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); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Absent a timely objection, “a district court need! not conduct a de novo review, but instead! must only satisfy itseif that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315 (quotation omitted). In “order to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection.” Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted); see United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007).

On March 5, 2026, plaintiff filed objections to the M&R [D.E. 21, 22]. The court has reviewed the M&R, the record, the objections, and the governing law. There is no clear error on the face of the record. See Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315. The court overrules plaintiff's objections.

On March 5, 2026, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file third amended complaint [D.E.

23].

In sum, the court ADOPTS the conclusions in the M&R [D.E. 20], DENIES plaintiff's motion to reopen case and for leave to file second amended complaint [D.E. 18], and OVERRULES plaintiffs objections to the M&R [D.E. 21, 22]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court refers plaintiff's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint [D.E. 23] to United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr., for a memorandum and recommendation.

SO ORDERED. This 2% day of March, 2026.

United States District Judge