BRYANT v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, 5:10-CV-237-D. (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20120229a97
Visitors: 7
Filed: Feb. 28, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 28, 2012
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. DEVER, III, Chief District Judge. On January 5, 2012, United States Magistrate David W. Daniel issued a Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") [D.E. 66]. In the M&R, Judge Daniel recommended that the court grant defendant Hutchens, Senter & Britton, P.A.'s motion to dismiss [D.E. 52]. No party objected to the M&R. "The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge's] report or specified proposed findi
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. DEVER, III, Chief District Judge. On January 5, 2012, United States Magistrate David W. Daniel issued a Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") [D.E. 66]. In the M&R, Judge Daniel recommended that the court grant defendant Hutchens, Senter & Britton, P.A.'s motion to dismiss [D.E. 52]. No party objected to the M&R. "The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge's] report or specified proposed findin..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. DEVER, III, Chief District Judge.
On January 5, 2012, United States Magistrate David W. Daniel issued a Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") [D.E. 66]. In the M&R, Judge Daniel recommended that the court grant defendant Hutchens, Senter & Britton, P.A.'s motion to dismiss [D.E. 52]. No party objected to the M&R.
"The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge's] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (alteration in original) (emphasis and quotation omitted). Absent a timely 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." Id. (quotation omitted).
The court has reviewed the M&R and the record. The court is satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. Defendant Hutchens, Senter & Britton, P.A.'s motion to dismiss [D.E. 52] is GRANTED, and defendant Hutchens, Senter & Britton, P.A. is DISMISSED from this action.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
