Tai et al v. CertainTeed Corporation et al

Filing 19

ORDER denying 14 Motion to Remand to State Court; adopting 18 Memorandum and Recommendations.. Signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 12/18/2012. (blf)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:12-cv-616-RJC-DSC CHESTER and EVA TAI, Plaintiff, v. CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, et. al, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, (Doc. No. 14), and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R), (Doc. No. 18), recommending that this Court deny Plaintiffs’ Motion. The parties have not filed objections to the M&R and the time for doing so has expired. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2). 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 district court may assign dispositive pretrial matters pending before the court to a magistrate judge for “proposed findings of fact and recommendations.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). 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.” Id. at § 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. “[I]n 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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). III. DISCUSSION Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court judge shall make a de novo determination of any portion of an M&R to which specific written objection has been made. FED. R. CIV. 72(b). No objection to the M&R having been filed, the parties have waived their right to de novo review of any issue covered in the M&R. Nevertheless, this Court has conducted a full and careful review of the M&R and other documents of record and, having done so, hereby finds that the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is, in all respects, in accordance with the law and should be approved. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its own. IV. CONCLUSION IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s M&R, (Doc. No. 18), is ADOPTED and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, (Doc. No. 14), is DENIED. Signed: December 18, 2012 2

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?