Bellamy v. Union County Board of Education

Filing 16

ORDER granting 11 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; adopting 15 Memorandum and Recommendations. Amended Complaint, 9 , is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 03/07/2025. (mdp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:23-cv-00898-GCM-SCR
GERALD BELLAMY,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNION COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim, (Doc. No. 11), the
Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”), (Doc. No. 15),
recommending that this Court grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, and other
documents of record. 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).
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, 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. 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, (Doc. No. 15), is ADOPTED;
2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 11), is GRANTED, and the
Amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 9), is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
Signed: March 7, 2025