“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting § 636(b)(1)(C), intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”
How later courts described this case
- “There is no indication that Congress, in enacting § 636(b)(1)(C), intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 7:19–CV–127–BR
PAUL ARNOLD LEWIS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
MURPHY-BROWN, LLC, )
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)
This matter is before the court on Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr.’s Memorandum
and Recommendation (“M&R”) recommending the dismissal of plaintiff’s claim pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and that plaintiff be allowed to proceed on his common law claims for nuisance
and negligence. (DE # 7.) Plaintiff did not file an objection thereto.
“The Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or
legal conclusion of the magistrate judge to which no objections have been raised.” Clark v.
Harrah’s NC Casino Co., LLC, No. 1:17–CV–00240–MR–DLH, 2018 WL 4664136, at *1
(W.D.N.C. Sept. 28, 2018) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“There is no
indication that Congress, in enacting § 636(b)(1)(C), intended to require a district judge to
review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”)). Accordingly, the court
ADOPTS the M&R as its own. Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim is DISMISSED. The Clerk is
DIRECTED to send plaintiff a blank summons. Within 30 days, plaintiff shall complete the
summons and return it to the Clerk for issuance. The United States Marshals Service is
DIRECTED to serve the summons with a copy of the complaint on defendant.
This 24 October 2019.
ae
Ent LS
W. Earl Britt
Senior U.S. District Judge