Walker v. Taylor: Motion to Dismiss Granted, Preliminary Injunction Denied
Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina adopted in full the memorandum and recommendation (M&R) of Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers. Defendant Kathryn Johnston Tart's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was granted, and plaintiff Robert Joseph Walker's motion for preliminary injunction was denied. No party filed objections to the M&R, and the court reviewed for clear error only under the Federal Magistrates Act standard, finding none.
“Defendant Kathryn Johnston Tart's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim [DE 19] is GRANTED and plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction [DE 11] is DENIED.”
About this source
GovPing monitors US District Court EDNC Docket Feed for new courts & legal regulatory changes. Every update since tracking began is archived, classified, and available as free RSS or email alerts — 3 changes logged to date.
What changed
The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation in full, granting defendant Kathryn Johnston Tart's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and denying plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. The court's review was limited to clear error because no party filed objections to the M&R. The failure to file objections waived de novo review rights. Parties in similar proceedings should ensure timely objections to magistrate judge recommendations are filed to preserve the right to full review of findings and conclusions.
This case affects civil litigants in federal district court proceedings involving magistrate judge recommendations, particularly those seeking to challenge magistrate judge rulings on motions to dismiss or preliminary injunctions. Procedurally, the case demonstrates that failure to object to an M&R results in waiver of de novo review rights.
Archived snapshot
Apr 24, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
Jump To
Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
March 11, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
Robert Joseph Walker v. Ceness Luther Taylor, Teresa Bailey Bogdanow Taylor, and Kathryn Johnston Tart
District Court, E.D. North Carolina
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 5:25-cv-00411
Precedential Status: Unknown Status
Trial Court Document
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:25-CV-411-BO-KS
ROBERT JOSEPH WALKER )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
) ORDER
CENESS LUTHER TAYLOR, )
TERESA BAILEY BOGDANOW )
TAYLOR, and KATHRYN JOHNSTON _ )
TART, )
)
Defendants. )
This cause comes before the Court on the memorandum and recommendation (M&R) of
United States Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers. [DE 23]. Magistrate Judge Numbers
recommends defendant Kathryn Johnston Tart’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim [DE
19] be granted and plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction [DE 11] be denied. No party has
filed an objection to the M&R, and the time for doing so has expired.
“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) (emphasis omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b). A party’s objections must be made “with sufficient specificity so as reaisonably to alert the
district court of the true ground for the objection.” Unitea States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622:
(4th Cir. 2007). Where no specific objections have been filed, the court reviews for clear error
only. Dunlap v. TM Trucking of the Carolinas, LLC, 288 F. Supp. 3d 654, 662 (D.S.C. 2017). On
clear error review, the court has no obligation to explain its reasoning for adopting the
recommendation. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court has reviewed the M&R for clear error and finds none. Accordingly, the M&R
[DE 23] is ADOPTED in full. Defendant Kathryn Johnston Tart’s motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim [DE 19] is GRANTED and plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction [DE 11] is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 4 0 day of March 2026.
TERRENCE W. BOYLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUBGE
Citations
Parties
Related changes
Get daily alerts for US District Court EDNC Docket Feed
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from US District Court E.D.N.C..
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when US District Court EDNC Docket Feed publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.