Johnson v. The State of North Carolina Procurement et al

Filing 14

ORDER adopting the Magistrate Judge's 13 Memorandum and Recommendations. Defendant's 9 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and for Lack of Jurisdiction is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 1/11/2022. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(brl)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:21-cv-00203-RJC-DCK
CONSTANCE L. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROY COOPER,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Order

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended
Complaint, (DE 9), and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”),
(DE 13). 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
Neither 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,

Case 3:21-cv-00203-RJC-DCK Document 14 Filed 01/11/22 Page 1 of 3

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 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, (DE 13), is ADOPTED; and

2.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, (DE 9), is GRANTED.

The Clerk is directed to close this case.

2
Case 3:21-cv-00203-RJC-DCK Document 14 Filed 01/11/22 Page 2 of 3

SO ORDERED.

Signed: January 11, 2022

3
Case 3:21-cv-00203-RJC-DCK Document 14 Filed 01/11/22 Page 3 of 3