Anderson et al v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.

Filing 34

ORDER adopting the Magistrate Judge's 33 Memorandum and Recommendations. Defendant's 20 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendant's 29 Motion to Stay is GRANTED. The parties shall submit Joint Status Reports on December 1, 2024 and every ninety (90) days thereafter, until the stay of this case is lifted. Signed by Senior Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 9/24/2024. (brl)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:23-cv-00560-RJC-DCK
MYRON ANDERSON and BRENDA
WEAVER, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated,

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

Plaintiffs,
v.
ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS,
INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc.
No. 20), and Motion to Stay, (Doc. No. 29), and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum
and Recommendation (“M&R”), (Doc. No. 33). 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 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, the Court
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. 33), is ADOPTED;
2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 20), is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE;
3. Defendant’s Motion to Stay, (Doc. No. 29), is GRANTED.
4. The parties shall submit Joint Status Reports on December 1, 2024, and
every ninety (90) days thereafter, until the stay of this case is lifted.

Signed: September 24, 2024

3