Duke Energy Florida, Inc. v. Westinghouse Electric Company

Filing 136

ORDER terminating as mooted 117 Memorandum and Recommendations by the withdrawal of the underlying Motion for Order to Show Cause (#112). The January 13, 2016 hearing is CANCELED. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 1/11/2016. (chh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:14-cv-00141-MOC-DSC
DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, INC.,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY
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). 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
1

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.
In that Recommendation (#117), Judge Cayer recommended that this court find
defendant in civil contempt. After a number of pleadings and post-recommendation
proceedings, plaintiff has withdrawn its Motion for Order to Show Cause (#112). With the
motion now being moot through withdrawal of the underlying motion, the court finds that
the Recommendation is also moot and will cancel the hearing.

ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Memorandum and Recommendation
(#117) is TERMINATED as mooted by the withdrawal of the underlying Motion for Order
to Show Cause (#112). The January 13, 2016, hearing is CANCELED.

Signed: January 11, 2016

2