Swearington v. Federal Trade Commission et al

Filing 17

ORDER granting 8 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; denying 12 Motion to Remand to State Court; denying 14 Motion to Remand; affirming 16 Memorandum and Recommendations. The remainder of this action is REMANDED to the North Carolina General Court of Justice, Mecklenburg County, for further proceedings.. Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 9/8/2017. (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-00254-MOC-DSC DERRITT SWEARINGTON, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, Vs. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION PAUL COX DME-DIRECT/VISCOPED S INSOLE, Defendants. ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF FEDERAL DEFENDANT AND REMAND TO STATE COURT THIS MATTER is before the Court on review of a Memorandum and Recommendation issued in this matter. In the August 17, 2017, Memorandum and Recommendation, the magistrate judge advised the parties of the right to file objections within 14 days, all in accordance with 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(c). No objections have been filed within the time allowed. I. Applicable Standard of Review 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 and recommendations.” Id. Moreover, the statute 1 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, 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. II. Discussion 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 brief 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 and grant relief in accordance therewith. In addition, the Court will remand the remainder of the action to state court as removal was based on the presence of a federal defendant and, with the dismissal of such federal defendant, no cognizable federal claims remain and the court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over any state claims inasmuch as it is unclear whether plaintiff ever perfected service on the nonfederal defendants prior to removal. ORDER IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Memorandum and Recommendation (#16) is AFFIRMED, plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (#12) is DENIED, defendant Federal Trade Commission’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and defendant Federal Trade Commission is dismissed from this action with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remainder of this action is REMANDED to the North Carolina General Court of Justice, Mecklenburg County, for further proceedings. Signed: September 8, 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?