Hill v. Shoe Carnival, Inc.

- 1 -
No. 6:25-cv-00349
Mardella Hill,
Plaintiff,
v.
Shoe Carnival, Inc.,
Defendant.
O R D E R
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit under the Tele-
phone Consumer Protection Act. Doc. 1. The case was referred to
a magistrate judge. Defendant then moved to dismiss for failure to
state a claim. Doc. 13. The magistrate judge issued a report rec-
ommending that defendant’s motion be granted and that plain-
tiff’s claims be dismissed with prejudice. Doc. 22 at 6. Plaintiff
did not object to the report.
When there have been no timely objections to a report, “the
court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face
of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee’s notes
to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the record and being satis-
fied that there is no clear error, the court accepts the report’s find-
ings and recommendations. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc.
13) is granted and plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with prejudice.
Any pending motions are denied as moot.
So ordered by the court on January 27, 2026.
J. CAM PB EL L BA RK ER
United States District Judge
Case 6:25-cv-00349-JCB-JDL Document 23 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:
<pageID>