Yelton v. LoanDepot.com, LLC

-1-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:25-cv-350-MOC-WCM
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.
21 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.
WILLIAM YELTON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) ORDER
)
LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC, )
)
Defendant. )
Case 1:25-cv-00350-MOC-WCM Document 23 Filed 04/07/26 Page 1 of 2

-2-
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.
II. 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 is 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
Case 1:25-cv-00350-MOC-WCM Document 23 Filed 04/07/26 Page 2 of 2