Newson v. Prinston Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Filing 18

ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge's 17 Memorandum and Recommendations; granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Partial 12 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Plaintiff's given leave to f ile a Second Amended Complaint consistent with the Court's decision within seven (7) days of this Order. The parties are directed to conduct an Initial Attorney's Conference pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 within fourteen (14) days of this Order. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 4/24/2019. (brl)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:18-cv-269-RJC-DCK
DERICK NEWSON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
PRINSTON PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.
Defendant.

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant’s Partial Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 12; hereinafter “the Motion”), and
the parties’ associated briefs and exhibits; and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum
and Recommendation (“M&R”), (Doc. No. 17), recommending that this Court grant
the Motion in part and deny the Motion in part. 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

1

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

2

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. 17), is ADOPTED;
2. Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint,
(Doc. No. 12), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically,
the Court grants the Motion in part by dismissing Plaintiff’s public policy
claim (Count IV).

The Court denies the Motion in part by allowing

Plaintiff’s claims under Title VII and ADA to proceed;
3. Plaintiff is given leave to file a Second Amended Complaint consistent with
the Court’s decision herein and naming the proper Defendant within seven
(7) days of this Order;
4. The parties are directed to conduct an Initial Attorney’s Conference
pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 within fourteen (14) days
of this Order.

Signed: April 24, 2019

3