IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION

Wright Pride Family, Trust, by and through C/A: 2:25-cv-5972-RMG Samuel Wright, Trustee,

Plaintiff, v. ORDER

J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., and L & K Recovery LLC, Defendants.

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Dkt. No. 23) of the Magistrate Judge recommending that the Court dismiss the Wright Pride Family Trust’s complaint and deny all other pending motions as moot. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts the R&R as the order of the Court, dismisses the complaint, and denies all remaining motions as moot. The Wright Pride Family Trust, by and through Samuel Wright Trustee, filed a complaint in state court which Defendants removed. Because a pro se individual such as Mr. Wright cannot represent an “artificial entity” like the trust, (Dkt. No. 23 at 1), the Magistrate Judge issued an order directing the Trust to obtain counsel and warning it that noncompliance with the court’s order would result in dismissal. (Dkt. No. 5) (warning that “any pleading filed by a lay person must be disregarded as a nullity if counsel is not retained by the trust” and that if “no counsel is obtained, this action may not proceed farther”) (emphasis removed). The Trust never obtained counsel, and the Magistrate Judge issued an R&R recommending that this action between dismissed and that all other pending motions be denied as moot. (Dkt. No. 23). The Court adopts the R&R as the order of the Court, dismisses this complaint, and denies all pending motions as moot. The Trust did obtain counsel and the action cannot proceed. As the R&R notes, “[i]t is well established that a litigant may not appear pro se on behalf of any ‘artificial entity.’ ” Hargrove , Tr. for Hargrove Empire Irrevocable Tr. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 5:25-CV-433-FL,

, at *1 (E.D.N.C. July 29, 2025) (quoting Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council,

(1993)). Mr. Wright’s objections to the R&R are unavailing. (Dkt. No. 28). Mr. Wright claims that

since the R&R’s filing, he has “resigned as trustee” and that, by extension, he wishes to file an amended complaint to “reflect the correct Plaintiff status.” (Id. at 2). Mr. Wright may certainly file a new lawsuit to reflect his supposed changed circumstances. But for the reasons stated in the R&R, this lawsuit cannot continue. (Dkt. No. 23) (noting that “any pleading filed by the Trust must be disregarded as a nullity since counsel has not been retained”). For the forgoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 23) as the Order of the Court and DISMISSES the instant action without prejudice and without leave to amend. All other pending motions are DENIED as moot. AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Richard Mark Gergel United States District Judge September 5, 2025 Charleston, South Carolina