North Carolina Environmental Justice Network et al v. Taylor et al

Filing 159

ORDER: The court adopts the Memorandum and Recommendation and Order 148 and overrules the objections. Defendants' joint motion for reconsideration and clarification 150 and the Taylor defendants' supplemental motion for reconsideration 153 are DENIED. Defendants' motion to strike 143 , defendants' motion to expedite 153 , and plaintiffs' motion to reconsider 119 are DISMISSED as moot. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 4/13/2015. Counsel is reminded to read the order in its entirety for critical information. (O'Brien, C.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
EASTERN DIVISION
No. 4:12-CV-154-D
NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL
WSTICE NETWORK, NEUSE
RIVERKEEPER FOUNDATION, INC.,
and WATERKEEPER ALLIANCE, INC.,
Plaintiffs,

v.
DONALD TAYLOR and
ANNIE TAYLOR, individually and
d/b/a TAYLOR FINISHING,
WSTIN T. MCLAWHORN, and
AARON MCLAWHORN,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

On January 14, 2015, Magistrate Judge Gates issued a Memorandum and Recommendation
and Order ("M&R and Order") [D.E. 148]. In that M&R and Order, Judge Gates ordered that
plaintiffs' motion to compel [D.E. 93] be allowed in part and denied in part, that defendants' motion
to strike [D.E. 139] be denied as moot, and recommended that plaintiffs' motion for relief pursuant
to Rule 56(d) [D.E. 143] be denied, but that the pending motions for summary judgment [D.E. 125,
128, 131] be denied without prejudice. On January 23, 2015, defendants filed a joint motion and
memorandum for reconsideration and clarification of the M&R and Order [D.E. 150, 151]. On
February 6, 2015, plaintiffs responded in opposition to defendants' motion for reconsideration [D.E.
152].

On February 23, 2015, the Taylor defendants filed a supplemental joint motion and

memorandum for reconsideration and clarification, a motion to expedite [D .E. 153, 154], and a reply
to plaintiffs' response [D.E. 155]. On March 12, 2015, plaintiffs responded in opposition to the
supplemental motion for reconsideration [D.E. 157]. On March 30, 2015, the Taylor defendants
replied [D.E. 158].

"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
towhichobjectionismade." Diamond v. Colonial Life &Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,315 (4th
Cir. 2005) (emphasis, alteration, and quotation omitted); 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 itselfthat
there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Diamong,
416 F.3d at 315 (quotation omitted).
The court has reviewed the M&R and Order, and the record. The court is satisfied that there
is no clear error in the M&R and Order. The court has reviewed de novo the portions of the M&R
and Order to which defendants objected. The court adopts the M&R and Order [D.E. 148] and
overrules the objections.
Defendants' joint motion for reconsideration and clarification [D.E. 150] and the Taylor
defendants' supplemental motion for reconsideration [D.E. 153] are DENIED. Defendants' motion
to strike [D.E. 143], defendants' motion to expedite [D.E. 153], and plaintiffs' motion to reconsider
[D.E. 119] are DISMISSED as moot.
Before filing any more discovery-related or schedule-related motions, the party shall notify
Magistrate Judge Gates's chambers via written communication copied to the opposing party. If
warranted, Judge Gates will hold a hearing (in person or by telephone) to resolve the discovery or
scheduling issue and then file any order on the docket.
SO ORDERED. This jJ_ day of April2015.

Chief United States District Judge

2