Greene v. Mullis et al
Filing
149
ORDER adopting the Magistrate Judge's 144 Memorandum and Recommendations. Defendant Town of Lilesville's 122 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to respond in writing by Friday 9/22/2023, to show cause as to why his remaining claims against Mullis should not also be dismissed. Signed by Senior District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 8/29/2023. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(brl)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:17-cv-00638-RJC-WCM
MICHAEL LEE GREENE,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
TOWN OF LILESVILLE, NC and
KEVIN R. MULLIS,
Defendants.
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Town of Lilesville’s Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings, (Doc. No. 122), and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and
Recommendations (“M&R”). (Doc. No. 144).
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,
1
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 and conclusory
objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’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 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.
In adopting the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, the Court dismisses all remaining
claims against the Town of Lilesville. Therefore, the only claims currently pending in this action
are those against Kevin Mullis in his individual capacity, and, as the Magistrate Judge noted,
(Doc. No. 144, at 20), “it appears those claims would be subject to dismissal for the same
reasons” that Greene’s claims against the Town of Lilesville are dismissed. Accordingly, Greene
2
must respond, in writing, by Friday, September 22, 2023, to show cause as to why his
remaining claims against Mullis should not also be dismissed.
IV.
CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The Magistrate Judge’s M&R, (Doc. No. 144), is ADOPTED;
2. Defendant Town of Lilesville’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Doc. No.
122), is GRANTED; and
3. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to respond, in writing, by Friday, September 22, 2023, to
show cause as to why his remaining claims against Mullis should not also be
dismissed.
Signed: August 29, 2023
3
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?