Keeley v. Synagro Technologies, Inc. ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:21-cv-00321-RJC-DCK PAUL KEELEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Order SYNAGRO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to Strike or Dismiss (Doc. No. 19) and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) (Doc. No. 24). The parties have not filed any objections to the M&R, and the time for doing so has expired. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). I. BACKGROUND Neither party has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s description of this case’s factual and procedural background. Therefore, the Court adopts that description as set forth in the M&R. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A district court may assign dispositive pretrial matters, including motions to dismiss, to a magistrate judge for “proposed findings of fact and recommendations.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), (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. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). However, “when objections to strictly legal issues are raised and no factual issues are challenged, de novo review of the record may be dispensed with.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). De novo review is also not required “when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Id. Similarly, when no objection is filed, “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). Hil. DISCUSSION Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district judge must make a de novo determination of any portion of an M&R to which specific written objection has been made. A party’s failure to make a timely objection is accepted as an agreement with the M&R’s conclusions. See Thomas vy. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985). No objection to the M&R having been filed, and the time for doing so having passed, the parties have waived their right to de novo review of any issue addressed in the M&R. Nevertheless, the Court has conducted a full review of the M&R and other documents of record and, having done so, finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the M&R. IV. CONCLUSION IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that: 1. The M&R (Doc. No. 24) is ADOPTED; and 2. The Defendant’s Motion to Strike or Dismiss (Doc. No. 19) is DENIED. December 5, 2022 Otef$ 4 Cr Of Robert J. Conrad, Jr. as United States District Judge ee