Davis v. Hilbourn, 5:14-CT-3324-D. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20180829b82
Visitors: 2
Filed: Aug. 27, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 27, 2018
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. DEVER, III , Chief District Judge . On June 7, 2018, Magistrate Judge Numbers issued a Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R" [D.E. 72] and recommended granting defendant's motion for summary judgment [D.E. 68] and dismissing Mandrey D. Davis's ("Davis") 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint. Davis did not object to the M&R, despite receiving an extension of time to do so. See [D.E. 76]. "The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determination of those por
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. DEVER, III , Chief District Judge . On June 7, 2018, Magistrate Judge Numbers issued a Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R" [D.E. 72] and recommended granting defendant's motion for summary judgment [D.E. 68] and dismissing Mandrey D. Davis's ("Davis") 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint. Davis did not object to the M&R, despite receiving an extension of time to do so. See [D.E. 76]. "The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determination of those port..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. DEVER, III, Chief District Judge.
On June 7, 2018, Magistrate Judge Numbers issued a Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R" [D.E. 72] and recommended granting defendant's motion for summary judgment [D.E. 68] and dismissing Mandrey D. Davis's ("Davis") 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Davis did not object to the M&R, despite receiving an extension of time to do so. See [D.E. 76].
"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) (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. 72].
In sum, the court adopts the conclusions in the M&R [D.E. 72], and GRANTS defendant's motion for summary judgment [D.E. 68]. Davis's complaint is DISMISSED, and the clerk shall close the case.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
