Kargarian v. Auto Zone

Filing 39

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 31 Motion to Dismiss; affirming 38 Memorandum and Recommendations.. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 10/3/2012. (blf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:12cv144
MOHAMMAD M. KARGARIAN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
Vs.
AUTOZONERS, LLC,
Defendant.
_______________________________

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 v. Davis, 718 F.2d at 200. Nonetheless, a district judge is responsible for the final
-1-

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 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
(#38) is AFFIRMED, defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (#31) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and all of plaintiff’s claims against
defendant are DISMISSED with prejudice EXCEPT Plaintiff’s Title VII Hostile Work
Environment Claim based on National Origin Discrimination with regard to actions that
occurred at store #2407.

Signed: October 3, 2012

-2-