Parker v. Thomas & Betts Corporation et al

Filing 35

ORDER denying 33 Memorandum and Recommendations.; granting 34 Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint. The defendant shall either answer the Second Amended Complaint within 14 days or move to dismiss it.. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 9/26/2017. (chh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:17-cv-41-MOC-DSC
ANTHONY PARKER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS & BETTS CORPORATION,
Defendant.

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the court on review of a Memorandum and
Recommendation (#33) issued in this case. 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 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). No objections have been filed within the time
allowed. However, the court notes that the pro se plaintiff obtained counsel and filed an
amended complaint the same day as the Memorandum and Recommendation was filed.
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
1

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 as it relates to the
original complaint. However, given that the pro se plaintiff obtained counsel and filed a
second amended complaint shortly thereafter, the interests of justice require the court to
deny the Memorandum and Recommendation (#33) without prejudice in order to allow for
a response to the newly amended complaint.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Memorandum and Recommendation
(#33) is DENIED without prejudice and plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend
Complaint (#34) is GRANTED. Defendant shall either answer the Second Amended
Complaint (#34-1) within 14 days or move to dismiss it.

Signed: September 26, 2017

2