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)

Download PDF
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

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?