Ramirez v. Borgwarner Turbo Systems et al

Filing 28

ORDER affirming 25 Memorandum and Recommendations; granting in part and denying in part Defts' 17 Motion to Dismiss, that is, GRANTED and the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Defts Barroff and Low man, and otherwise DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Deft BTS's right to renew its Motion should Pltf fail to effect timely service of process. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. on 3/1/16. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(ejb)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 1:15-cv-00200-MOC-DSC JUAN JOSE RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, Vs. SCOTT BARROFF BORGWARNER TURBO SYSTEMS LARISA LOWMAN, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER THIS MATTER is before the court on review of a Memorandum and Recommendation issued in this matter. In the Memorandum and Recommendation, the magistrate judge advised the parties of the right to file objections within 14 days, all in accordance with 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(c). No objections have been filed within the time allowed. The Federal Magistrates Act of 1979, as amended, 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). However, “when objections to strictly legal issues are raised and no factual issues are challenged, de novo review of the record may be dispensed with.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Similarly, de novo review is not 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 recommendation. After such careful review, the court determines that the recommendation of the magistrate judge is fully consistent with and supported by current law. Further, the brief factual background and recitation of issues is supported by the applicable pleadings. Based on such determinations, the court will fully affirm the Memorandum and Recommendation and grant relief in accordance therewith. ORDER IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Memorandum and Recommendation (#25) is AFFIRMED, that “Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss” (#17) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, that is, GRANTED and the Amended Complaint DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Defendants Barroff and Lowman, and otherwise DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Defendant BTS’s right to renew its Motion should plaintiff fail to effect timely service of process. Signed: March 1, 2016

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?