Landry v. State of North Carolina et al

Filing 53

ORDER denying without prejudice 19 Motion to Dismiss; adopting 20 Memorandum and Recommendations.Signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 9/21/11. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(gpb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:10-cv-585-RJC-DCK
ANGELIQUE LANDRY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF CHARLOTTE, CHARLOTTEMECKLENBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT,
RODNEY MONROE, M.L. RORIE, and
MICHAEL LEE ROBERTS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendant Michael Lee Roberts’s motion
to dismiss (Doc. No. 19), and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum & Recommendation
(“M&R) recommending that the Motion to Dismiss be denied. (Doc. No. 20). Neither party
filed objections to the M&R.
I.

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 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,
the Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s M&R and the record accordingly.
II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Neither party objects to the findings of fact as set forth in the M&R; this Court therefore

adopts the facts as set forth in the M&R for purposes of resolving these motions.
III.

DISCUSSION
The Magistrate Judge properly found that the defendant’s two-sentence “motion,” which

was not accompanied by a supporting brief, failed to meet the requirements of Local Rule
7.1(C). No objections were filed, and the Court thus adopts the M&R and the defendant’s
motion to dismiss is DENIED without prejudice.
IV.

CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1.

The M&R (Doc. No. 20) is adopted.

2.

Defendant Michael Lee Roberts’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Doc. No. 19) is
DENIED without prejudice.

Signed: September 21, 2011

2

3