Padgett v. Compass Group USA et al

Filing 19

ORDER: The Magistrate Judge's 18 Memorandum and Recommendations is ADOPTED; Defendants Jennifer Hill and Shannon Thornton's 9 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; and this matter shall proceed with respect to the remaining defendant in the absence of a voluntary resolution of this dispute between the parties. Signed by District Judge Kenneth D. Bell on 7/8/2024. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(mek)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:23-CV-00764-KDB-DCK RAUPUNZEL PADGETT, Plaintiff, v. ORDER COMPASS GROUP USA, JENNIFER HILL, SSC SERVICES FOR EDUCATION AND SHANNON THORNTON, Defendants. THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants Jennifer Hill and Shannon Thornton’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. No. 9) and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) (Doc. No. 18), recommending that those Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be granted. The parties have not filed an objection 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. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985) (explaining the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge to which no objections have been raised). 1 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A district court may designate a magistrate judge to “submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition” of dispositive pretrial matters, including motions to dismiss. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any party may object to the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations, and the court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, “in the absence of a timely filed objection, 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” and need not give any explanation for adopting the M&R. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). Also, the Court does not perform a de novo review where a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). After reviewing the record, the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). III. DISCUSSION Having carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge's M&R, the relevant portions of the record and applicable legal authority, this Court is satisfied that there is no clear error as to the M&R, to which no objection was made. Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315. Accordingly, this Court finds that it should adopt the findings and recommendations set forth in the M&R as its own solely for the 2 purpose of deciding this motion and that Defendants Hill and Thornton’s Motion to Dismiss should be granted. IV. ORDER IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s M&R, (Doc. No. 18), is ADOPTED; and 2. Defendants Jennifer Hill and Shannon Thornton’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 9), is GRANTED; and 3. This matter shall proceed with respect to the remaining defendant in the absence of a voluntary resolution of this dispute between the parties. SO ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED. Signed: July 8, 2024 3

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?