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)

Download PDF
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

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?