Johnson v. Bennett et al

Filing 38

ORDER re 36 MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 10 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by R. David Mitchell, Boyd Bennett, 22 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary J udgment filed by Robert Uhren, 14 MMEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 10 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by R. David Mitchell, Boyd Bennett, 22 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Robert Uhren, 14 M - Complaint is dismissed. Signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 10/27/10. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(siw)

-DCK Johnson v. Bennett et al

Doc. 38

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 1:07cv313-RJC-DCK CHARLES WILLIAM JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. BOYD BENNETT, Director, NC Department of Correction, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on motions for summary judgment by the plaintiff (Doc. No. 14), defendants Bennett and Mitchell (Doc. No. 10), and defendant Robert Uhren (Doc. No. 22), and the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") (Doc. No. 36). The matter is ripe for determination. I. BACKGROUND No party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's statement of the factual and procedural background of this case, and the Court thus adopts the facts as set forth in the M&R. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Federal Magistrate Act provides that "a district court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir.1983). "By contrast, in the absence of a timely filed 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 of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note). Similarly, de novo review is not

Dockets.Justia.com

required by the statute "when a party makes general or conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations." Id. Moreover, the statute does not on its face require any review at all of issues that are not the subject of an objection. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Camby, 718 F.2d at 200. Nonetheless, a district judge is responsible for the final determination and outcome of the case, and accordingly the Court has conducted a careful review of the Magistrate Judge's M&R. III. DISCUSSION After a careful review of the record in this case, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's recommendation is consistent with and supported by the law. Thus, the Court hereby adopts the M&R of the Magistrate Judge as the final decision of this Court for all purposes in this case, and this matter will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. IV. CONCLUSION IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter.

Signed: October 27, 2010

2