Polyzen, Inc. v. Radiadyne, LLC
ORDER denying 10 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and to Correct Ownership. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 9/13/2012. (Sawyer, D.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
On August 31, 2012, Magistrate Judge Gates issued a Memorandum and Recommendation
("M&R") [D.E. 29], In the M&R, Judge Gates recommended that the court deny defendant's
motion to dismiss without prejudice [D.E. 10].1 Neither party filed objections to the M&R.
"The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determination of
those portions ofthe [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) (alteration in original) (emphasis and quotation omitted). Absent a timely objection, "a
district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no
clear error on the face ofthe record in order to accept the recommendation." Id. (quotation omitted).
The court has reviewed the M&R, the record, and the briefs. The court is satisfied that there
is no clear error on the face of the record. The court agrees with Magistrate Judge Gates's
conclusions and adopts the M&R [D.E. 29]. Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack ofjurisdiction
and to correct ownership [D.E. 10] is DENIED without prejudice.
1 In the
M&R, Magistrate Judge Gates cites defendant's motion as [D.E. 20]. The citation
should be [D.E. 10] (Radiadyne's motion to dismiss and to correct ownership).
SO ORDERED. This.LL day of September 2012.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?