Fokuo v. RingCentral, Inc.
ORDER adopting the Magistrate Judge's 11 Memorandum and Recommendations. Defendant's 6 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Dodd-Frank Retaliation Claim is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 11/19/2021. (brl)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Dodd-Frank Retaliation Claim, (DE 6); Plaintiff’s Response, (DE 10); and the Magistrate
Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”), (DE 11). In her response, Plaintiff
stated she “does not object to the defendant’s motion to dismiss with prejudice, plaintiff’s second
cause of action only, for retaliation in violation of Dodd-Frank.” (DE 10 at 2). 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).
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
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.”
§ 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 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).
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.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
The Magistrate Judge’s M&R, (DE 11), is ADOPTED; and
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Dodd-Frank Retaliation Claim, (DE 6),
Signed: November 19, 2021
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?