Filing 34

ORDER signed by JUDGE N. C. TILLEY, JR on 07/06/2017 adopting the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation, that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. # 10 ] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, in that all claims, except Plaintiff's defamation claim, are DISMISSED. (Garland, Leah)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SEAN V. TERRY, Plaintiff, v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:16CV256 ORDER On March 14, 2017, the United States Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum Opinion, Order, and Recommendation (“Recommendation”) was filed and notice was served on the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. [Doc. #31.] On March 30, 2017, pro se Plaintiff Sean V. Terry filed a Response to the Recommendation which raises “a couple of questions, an objection, and a recommendation.” [Doc. #32.] It seems as though Mr. Terry’s objection relates to Defendant Swift Transportation’s (“Swift”) use of the word “ignorance” in its briefing and Mr. Terry’s equating this use with racist comments. (Id.) To the extent Mr. Terry has made specific objections to the Recommendation, the Court has made a de novo determination that none of Mr. Terry’s concerns affect the Court’s acceptance of the Magistrate Judge’s report. Further, Swift did not file any Objections to the Recommendation.1 Therefore, the Court adopts the Recommendation.                                                               On April 13, 2017, Swift did file a Response to Plaintiff’s Objections [Doc. #33], but no objections to the Recommendation.   1 For the reasons stated herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #10] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, in that all claims, except Plaintiff’s defamation claim, are DISMISSED. This the 6th day of July, 2017. /s/ N. Carlton Tilley, Jr. Senior United States District Judge 2   

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?