PTI Assoc LLC v. Carolina Intl Sales Co Inc

Filing 78

ORDER adopting 71 Memorandum and Recommendations; granting 68 Motion to Dismiss counterclaim, counterclaim dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 3/15/11. (bsw)

-DSC PTI Assoc LLC v. Carolina Intl Sales Co Inc

Doc. 78

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:10-cv-108-RJC-DSC PTI ASSOCIATES, LLC, Plaintiff, vs. CAROLINA INTERNATIONAL SALES COMPANY , INC ., (dba "CISCO") AND NORMAN BEAUCAMP, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff PTI Associates, LLC (PTI)'s Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim (Doc. No. 68), the parties' associated briefs and exhibits, and the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation (Doc. No. 71). Defendants did not object to the M&R, and the time for objecting has expired. For the reasons that follow, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the M&R (Doc. No. 71) and GRANTS Plaintiff's motion. I. BACKGROUND Neither 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

Dockets.Justia.com

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 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." Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). 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 reviewed the Magistrate Judge's M&R. III. DISCUSSION Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), a party is given fourteen (14) days to file specific written objections to a Magistrate Judge's proposed findings and recommendations. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); see also, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The parties were notified that objections to the M&R must be filed within this time frame. Defendants did not file any objections as of the date of this Order. Considering that no objections were filed, and after a review of the record in this case, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's recommendations are consistent with and supported by law. IV. CONCLUSION IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that: 1. 2. 3. The M&R (Doc. No. 71) is hereby ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED. The Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 68) is GRANTED. Defendant Beaucamp's Counterclaim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Signed: March 15, 2011