Smalls v. TrueBlue, Inc. et al
Filing
69
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 61 Motion to Compel; adopting 68 Memorandum and Recommendations. Parties shall file a status report jointly on 5/1/16 and every 90 days thereafter. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 3/16/16. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(ssh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:15-cv-293-RJC-DCK
CRAIG SMALLS, individually, and on behalf of )
all others similarly situated,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
LABOR READY MID-ATLANTIC, INC. and
)
TRUEBLUE, INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration
and Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration, (Doc. No. 61); and
the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”), (Doc. No. 68);
recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ Motion in part and deny it in part. 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
No party has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s statement of the factual and procedural
background of this case. Therefore, the Court adopts the facts as set forth in the M&R.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A district court may assign dispositive pretrial matters, including motions to dismiss, to a
magistrate judge for “proposed findings of fact and recommendations.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) & (B). The Federal Magistrate Act provides that a district court “shall make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
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). De novo review is also not required “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. Similarly, when no objection is filed, “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
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. A party’s failure to make a timely objection is accepted as an agreement with the
conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985). No
objection to the M&R having been filed, and the time for doing so having passed, 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 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:
1. The Magistrate Judge’s M&R, (Doc. No. 68), is ADOPTED.
2. Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Stay
Proceedings Pending Arbitration, (Doc. No. 61), is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part. Specifically, Defendants’ request to compel arbitration and to stay
this matter pending arbitration is GRANTED, but Defendants’ request to dismiss the
case is DENIED. Therefore, this matter is hereby STAYED pending the completion
of arbitration.
3. The parties shall file a status report, jointly if possible, on May 1, 2016, and every
ninety (90) days thereafter until otherwise ordered by the Court.
Signed: March 16, 2016
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?