McNeill v. Norris, 5:15-CT-3193-D. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20180226a42
Visitors: 20
Filed: Feb. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 13, 2018
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. DEVER, III , Chief District Judge . On January 25, 2018, Magistrate Judge Numbers issued a Memorandum and Recommendation and recommended that the court deny James C. McNeill's ("McNeill") motion for a preliminary injunction [D.E. 67]. No party objected to the M&R. "The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determination ofthose portions of the magistrate judge's report or specified proposed fmdings or recommendations to which objection is made."
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. DEVER, III , Chief District Judge . On January 25, 2018, Magistrate Judge Numbers issued a Memorandum and Recommendation and recommended that the court deny James C. McNeill's ("McNeill") motion for a preliminary injunction [D.E. 67]. No party objected to the M&R. "The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determination ofthose portions of the magistrate judge's report or specified proposed fmdings or recommendations to which objection is made." ..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. DEVER, III, Chief District Judge.
On January 25, 2018, Magistrate Judge Numbers issued a Memorandum and Recommendation and recommended that the court deny James C. McNeill's ("McNeill") motion for a preliminary injunction [D.E. 67]. No party objected to the M&R.
"The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determination ofthose portions of the magistrate judge's report or specified proposed fmdings or recommendations to which objection is made." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,315 (4thCir. 2005) (emphasis, alteration, and quotation omitted); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). 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." Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315 (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. Accordingly, the court adopts the conclusions in the M&R [D.E. 67], and DENIES McNeill's motion for a preliminary injunction [D.E. 48].
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
