Kingsberry v. Union County Public Schools

Filing 14

ORDER dismissing 5 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; affirming 9 Memorandum and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 11/9/2017. (eef)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:17-cv-395-RJC-DCK
RICHARD KINGSBERRY
Plaintiff,
v.
UNION COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc.
No. 5); and Magistrate Judge Keesler’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”), (Doc. No.
9), recommending that this Court dismiss the Defendant’s motion as moot. 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. 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. 9), is ADOPTED;
2. The Union County Public Schools, (Doc. No. 5), is DISMISSED;

Signed: November 9, 2017