Filed: Oct. 08, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 08, 2019
Summary: ORDER ROBERT J. CONRAD, JR. , District Judge . THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 7), and the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R"), (Doc. No. 15). I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff initiated this action against Defendants on May 10, 2019 by filing her Complaint. (Doc. No. 1.) Defendant North Carolina Board of Elections filed the instant Motion to Dismiss on June 7, 2019. (Doc. No. 7.) In the M&R, the Magistrate Judge recommended that
Summary: ORDER ROBERT J. CONRAD, JR. , District Judge . THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 7), and the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R"), (Doc. No. 15). I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff initiated this action against Defendants on May 10, 2019 by filing her Complaint. (Doc. No. 1.) Defendant North Carolina Board of Elections filed the instant Motion to Dismiss on June 7, 2019. (Doc. No. 7.) In the M&R, the Magistrate Judge recommended that ..
More
ORDER
ROBERT J. CONRAD, JR., District Judge.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 7), and the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R"), (Doc. No. 15).
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated this action against Defendants on May 10, 2019 by filing her Complaint. (Doc. No. 1.) Defendant North Carolina Board of Elections filed the instant Motion to Dismiss on June 7, 2019. (Doc. No. 7.) In the M&R, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this Court grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for lack of standing. (Doc. No. 15, at 3-4.) The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of their right to file objections to the M&R within fourteen days, (Doc. No. 15, at 4-5); however, no objections were filed,1 and the time for doing so has expired, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The district court may assign dispositive pretrial matters pending before the court to a magistrate judge for "proposed findings of fact and recommendations." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(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. at § 636(b)(1); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). "[I]n the absence of a timely filed 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 v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).
III. DISCUSSION
As no objection to the M&R has been made, the parties have waived their right to de novo review of any issues covered in the M&R. After review of the M&R and the entire record, the Court determines that the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is fully consistent with and supported by current law. Therefore, the Court adopts the M&R.
IV. CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's M&R, (Doc. No. 15), is ADOPTED, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 7), is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
