Celgard, LLC v. Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd.

Filing 78

ORDER affirming 77 Memorandum and Recommendations.; denying 15 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 11/12/2013. (blf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:13-cv-00122-MOC-DSC
CELGARD, LLC,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
SUMITOMO CHEMICAL CO., LTD.,
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 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
(#77) is AFFIRMED, and defendant’s “Motion to Dismiss … Under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) and (2), or in the Alternative to Transfer Venue …” (#15) is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE to filing a new motion following jurisdictional discovery.

Signed: November 12, 2013