Filed: Aug. 06, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 06, 2019
Summary: ORDER ROBERT J. CONRAD, JR. , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on multiple motions in Gean v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Bd. Of Ed., et al. , 3:18-CV-437-RJC-DCK ("the '437 case") and Gean v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Bd. Of Ed., et al. , 3:18-CV-637-RJC-DCK ("the '637 case"); the parties' briefs and exhibits on those motions; the Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") of the United States Magistrate Judge, ('437, Doc. No. 40; '637, Doc. No. 36), addressing all pending motions and r
Summary: ORDER ROBERT J. CONRAD, JR. , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on multiple motions in Gean v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Bd. Of Ed., et al. , 3:18-CV-437-RJC-DCK ("the '437 case") and Gean v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Bd. Of Ed., et al. , 3:18-CV-637-RJC-DCK ("the '637 case"); the parties' briefs and exhibits on those motions; the Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") of the United States Magistrate Judge, ('437, Doc. No. 40; '637, Doc. No. 36), addressing all pending motions and re..
More
ORDER
ROBERT J. CONRAD, JR., District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on multiple motions in Gean v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Bd. Of Ed., et al., 3:18-CV-437-RJC-DCK ("the '437 case") and Gean v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Bd. Of Ed., et al., 3:18-CV-637-RJC-DCK ("the '637 case"); the parties' briefs and exhibits on those motions; the Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") of the United States Magistrate Judge, ('437, Doc. No. 40; '637, Doc. No. 36), addressing all pending motions and recommending that the Court grant Defendants' motions to dismiss and consolidate and deny the remaining motions; Plaintiff's Objections to the M&R; and Defendants' Responses in Opposition to Plaintiff's Objections.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
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 or conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate judge'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).
II. DISCUSSION
Even construing Plaintiff's Objections liberally, Plaintiff has done nothing more than regurgitate factual averments and summary assertions she previously asserted in numerous, redundant filings.1 The Court already considered the arguments raised in Plaintiff's Objections and found them unpersuasive.2 Plaintiff seems to only dispute the suggested outcome of the M&R: dismissal of her case. Filing objections such as these frustrates the purpose of the initial referral of motions to the Magistrate Judge. Nevertheless, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the M&R. After an independent review of the M&R, Plaintiff's Objections thereto, and a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the recommendation to grant the motions to dismiss and consolidate and deny the remaining motions is in accordance with law.
III. CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
(1) The Magistrate Judge's M&R, ('437, Doc. No. 40; '637, Doc. No. 36), is ADOPTED;
(2) Defendants' Joint Motion to Consolidate this case with 3:18cv637, ('437, Doc. No. 27), is GRANTED. Case No. 3:18-CV-637-RJC-DCK is now CONSOLIDATED with the earlier filed 3:18-CV-437-RJC-DCK;
(3) Defendant Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, ('437, Doc. No. 3), is GRANTED;
(4) Defendant Classroom Teachers Association of North Carolina's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, ('437, Doc. No. 7), is GRANTED;
(5) Defendant EEOC's Motion to Dismiss, ('437, Doc. No. 15), is GRANTED;
(6) Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, ('437, Doc. No. 14), is DENIED AS MOOT;
(7) Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint, ('437, Doc. No. 32), is DENIED;
(8) Plaintiff's Motion to Strike, ('437, Doc. No. 35), is DENIED AS MOOT;
(9) Defendant EEOC's Motion to Dismiss, ('637, Doc. No. 2), is GRANTED;
(10) Defendant Classroom Teachers Association of North Carolina, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, ('637, Doc. No. 4), is GRANTED;
(11) Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, ('637, Doc. No. 21), is DENIED AS MOOT;
(12) Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint, ('637, Doc. No. 22), is DENIED;
(13) Plaintiff's Motion to Strike, ('637, Doc. No. 29), is DENIED AS MOOT;
(14) Plaintiff's Motion to Strike, ('637, Doc. No. 30), is DENIED AS MOOT;
(15) All of Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff is forewarned that the filing of any subsequent lawsuits in this Court based on the same set of facts and allegations in this matter (i.e., the '437 case), the '637 case, and the '275 case may result in the Court issuing a prefiling injunction; and
(16) The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
