Dayton v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority et al
Filing
24
ORDER granting 14 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; affirming 21 Memorandum and Recommendations as to defendant Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 2/21/2018. (eef)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:17-cv-392-RJC-DCK
DORA DAYTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL
AUTHORITY D/B/A CAROLINAS
HEALTHCARE SYSYEM and BRAIN MAY,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority’s
(“Defendant’s”) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Doc. No. 14); their Memorandum in
Support, (Doc. No. 5); Dora Dayton’s (“Plaintiff’s”) Memorandum in Opposition, (Doc. No. 19);
Defendant’s Reply, (Doc. No. 20); and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and
Recommendation (“M&R”), (Doc. No. 21), recommending that this Court grant the Defendant’s
motion and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation and failure to accommodate under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) due to her failure to exhaust administrative remedies as
the ADA requires. The parties have not filed objections to the M&R and the time for doing so has
expired. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2).
I.
BACKGROUND
No party has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s statement of the factual and procedural
background of this case. Therefore, the Court adopts the facts as set forth in the M&R.
II.
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). 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). 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).
III.
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 an M&R 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 M&R 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 M&R. Nevertheless, this Court
has conducted a full review of the M&R 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. Specifically, Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative
remedies prior to filing her present suit. Plaintiff failed to include the charges of retaliation and
failure to accommodate on her EEOC charge. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its own.
IV.
CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The Magistrate Judge’s M&R, (Doc. No. 21), is ADOPTED;
2. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority’s (“Defendant’s”) Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings, (Doc. No. 14), is GRANTED.
Signed: February 21, 2018
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?