Al Hamra Trading Est. . v. Diamondback Tactical, LLLP et al

Filing 42

ORDER denying 35 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; accepting 38 Memorandum and Recommendations; denying 12 Motion to Dismiss ; denying 16 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 8/12/13. (nll)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00373-MR-DLH

AL HAMRA TRADING EST.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
DIAMONDBACK TACTICAL, LLLP,
)
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendants’ Motions to
Dismiss [Docs. 12, 16, 35] and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and
Recommendation [Doc. 38] regarding the disposition of those motions.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and the standing Orders of
Designation of this Court, the Honorable Dennis L. Howell, United States
Magistrate Judge, was designated to consider the motions to dismiss and
to submit a recommendation for their disposition.
On July 9, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed a Memorandum and
Recommendation in this case containing proposed conclusions of law in
support of a recommendation regarding the Defendants’ Motions. [Doc.

38].

The parties were advised that any objections to the Magistrate

Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation were to be filed in writing
within fourteen (14) days of service.

The period within which to file

objections has expired, and no written objections to the Memorandum and
Recommendation have been filed.
After a careful review of the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation,
the Court finds that the proposed conclusions of law are consistent with
current case law. Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts the Magistrate
Judge’s Recommendation that the Diamondback Defendants’ Motion [Doc.
12] and Defendant Herman’s Motion [Doc. 35] be denied, and that
Defendant Walsh’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 16] be denied to the extent that
it seeks to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).1

ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Memorandum and
Recommendation [Doc. 38] is ACCEPTED; the Diamondback Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 12] is DENIED; Defendant Herman’s Motion to
Dismiss [Doc. 35] is DENIED; and Defendant Walsh’s Motion to Dismiss

1

To the extent that Defendant Walsh’s motion sought dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(2), the Magistrate Judge denied such motion without prejudice. [See Doc. 39].
2

[Doc. 16] is DENIED to the extent that it seeks to dismiss the Plaintiff’s
claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants shall file their
Answers to the Complaint within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this
Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: August 12, 2013

3