Wood v. Sanofi S.A. et al

Filing 23

ORDER adopting Magistrate's Order and Recommendation and denying 9 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 10/13/16. (ssh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:16-cv-261-RJC-DCK
DELIGHT WOOD,
Plaintiff,
v.
SANOFI S.A., AVENTIS PHARMA S.A., AND
SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC’s
Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 9), and the Magistrate Judge’s Order and Recommendation, (Doc.
No. 22), in part recommending that this Court deny the motion to dismiss without prejudice to
re-file a motion to dismiss at a later date due to a stay currently in effect in the case. The parties
have not filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and the time for doing so
has expired. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
I.

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).
Nonetheless, “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).
II.

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 a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation 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 Magistrate Judge’s recommendation 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 recommendation. Nevertheless, this Court has conducted a
full review of the recommendation 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.
III.

CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The Magistrate Judge’s recommendation contained in the Magistrate Judge’s Order
and Recommendation, (Doc. No. 22), is ADOPTED;

2. Defendant Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 9), is DENIED
without prejudice.

Signed: October 13, 2016