Hodge v. North Carolina Department of Public Safety ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION No. 5:19-CV-478-D MATTHEW HODGE, et al, ) Plaintiffs, v. ORDER NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, et al., ) Defendants. . On July 26, 2022, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court referred defendants’ motion for sanctions or, in the alternative, to compel discovery responses and depositions [D.E. 73], an affidavit [D.E. 74], and a memorandum in support [D.E. 75] to Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II [D.E. 76]. On October 17, 2022, Magistrate Judge Numbers issued Memorandum and Recommendations (“M&R”) and recommended that the 84 plaintiffs who failed to participate in discovery be dismissed and that the 12 representative opt-in plaintiffs who failed to fully comply with discovery be given more time to comply. See DE. 90] 6, 11-12. On October 31, 2022, the parties submitted a joint notice stating that seven representative opt-in plaintiffs’ failed to comply with discovery [D.E. 91]. On November 3, 2022, Magistrate Judge Numbers issued a second M&R . recommended that the seven representative opt-in plaintiffs who failed to comply with discovery also be dismissed [D.E. 92]. No one objected to the M&R. □ “[T]he 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) (cleaned up); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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). If a party makes only general objections, de novo review is not required. See Wells v. _ Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1997). In “order to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection.” Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted); see United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007). The court has reviewed the M&Rs, the record, and the parties’ joint response. The court is satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. In sum, the court ADOPTS the M&Rs [D.E. 90, 92]. Plaintiffs who failed to comply with discovery are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. SO ORDERED. This 2 day of December, 2022. <| a Never J S C. DEVER III □ United States District Judge

Document Info

Docket Number: 5:19-cv-00478

Filed Date: 12/2/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/25/2024