Rhyne et al v. United States Steel Corporation et al

Filing 89

ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge's 81 Memorandum and Recommendations; denying Defendant's 53 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Fraudulent Concealment Claim. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 3/4/2019. (brl)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:18-cv-00197-RJC-DSC
BRUCE RHYNE & JANICE RHYNE
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES STEEL
CORPORATION, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Exon Mobil Corporation’s
(“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Fraudulent Concealment Claim, (Doc.
No. 53), and the parties’ associated briefs and exhibits, (Doc. Nos. 54, 68); the
Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) of the United States Magistrate
Judge, (Doc. No. 81), recommending that the Court deny Defendant’s Motion;
Defendant’s Objections to the M&R, (Doc. No. 85); and Plaintiffs’ Response in
Opposition to Defendant’s Objections, (Doc. No. 86).
After an independent review of the M&R, Defendant’s Objections thereto,1

The Court notes that Defendant’s Objection to the M&R was essentially a
regurgitation of arguments it previously asserted in its brief, (Doc. No. 54),
1
1

and a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the recommendation to
deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Fraudulent Concealment Claim is
correct and in accordance with law. For the reasons stated in the M&R as well as
Plaintiffs’ briefs, the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are
ADOPTED and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Fraudulent Concealment
Claim is DENIED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
(1) The Magistrate Judge’s M&R, (Doc. No. 81), is ADOPTED; and
(2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Fraudulent Concealment
Claim, (Doc. No. 53), is DENIED.

Signed: March 4, 2019

accompanying its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Fraudulent Concealment Claim.
Therefore, the Court already considered the arguments raised in Defendant’s
Objections and found them unpersuasive. Defendant seems to only dispute the
suggested outcome of the M&R: denying its Motion. Filing objections such as these
frustrates the purpose of the initial reference of the Motion to the Magistrate Judge.
Nevertheless, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the M&R.
2