Booker v. Albritton et al

Filing 36

ORDER granting 28 Motion to Dismiss ; granting 32 Motion to Dismiss ; affirming 34 Memorandum and Recommendations.; granting 9 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; granting 9 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 13 Motion to Dismiss ; granting 15 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; granting 15 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 17 Motion to Dismiss ; granting 19 Motion to Dismiss ; granting 24 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; granting 24 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 9/26/2017. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(chh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:17-cv-128-MOC-DSC
LEKAYLE BOOKER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICIA ALBRITTON, ET. AL.,
Defendant.

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the court on review of a Memorandum and
Recommendation (#34) 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. The Court notes that the letter sending plaintiff a copy of the M&R was returned
on September 25, 2017, as “undeliverable.” It is, however, the responsibility of the litigant
to keep the court informed of her current mailing address.
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
1

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
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. Further, the factual
background and recitation of issues is supported by the applicable pleadings. Based on such
determinations, the court will fully affirm the Memorandum and Recommendation (#13)
and grant relief in accordance therewith.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Memorandum and Recommendation
(#34) is AFFIRMED and defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (#9, 13, 15, 17, 19, 24, 28, and
32) are GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully
instructed to enter Judgment in accordance with this Order.

Signed: September 26, 2017

2