Rehberg et al v. Flowers Foods, Inc et al
Filing
92
ORDER granting 84 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Burks, Lewis, McClain, Mouka, and Ring; affirming 91 Memorandum and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 08/13/2014. (jlk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:12-cv-00596-MOC-DSC
WILLARD ALLEN RILEY
MARIO RONCHETTI
SCOTT REHBERG,
Plaintiffs,
Vs.
FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF JAMESTOWN, LLC
FLOWERS FOODS, INC.,
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 v. Davis, 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
(#91) is AFFIRMED, the M&R is adopted in full, defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs Burks, Lewis, McClain, Mouka, and Ring is (#84) is GRANTED, and
plaintiffs Burks, Lewis, McClain, Mouka, and Ring are DISMISSED from this action.
Signed: August 13, 2014
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?