Andritz Hydro Corp. et al v. PPL Montana, LLC
Filing
35
ORDER adopting 34 Memorandum and Recommendations.; denying 19 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; denying 21 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 10/10/2013. (blf)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:13-cv-412-RJC-DSC
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
PPL MONTANA, LLC and PPL ENERGY )
)
SUPPLY, LLC
)
Defendants.
ANDRITZ HYDRO CORP. f/k/a
VA TECH HYDRO USA CORP.
and ANDRITZ (USA) INC.,
ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction and supporting memorandum, (Doc. Nos. 19, 20), Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Based on Tolling Agreement and supporting memorandum (Doc. Nos. 21, 22), and the
Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R), (Doc. No. 34), recommending
that this Court deny Defendants’ Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and deny Defendants’
Motion to dismiss based on the tolling agreement without prejudice. 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)(C); 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, including
the documents submitted by Defendants dealing with discussions between the parties about the
creation of a Tolling Agreement. Having so examined the record, the Court 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. 36), is
ADOPTED, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (Doc. No. 19) is DENIED,
and Defendants Motion to Dismiss Based on the Tolling Agreement (Doc. No. 21) is DENIED
without prejudice.
Signed: October 10, 2013
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?