The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:18-cv-586-RJC-DSC
JANE DOE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
) AMENDED ORDER
CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG BOARD )
OF EDUCATION et al. )
)
Defendants. )
)
)
)
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Board of Education and Anthony Perkins’s Motion To Dismiss, (Doc. No. 27: “the
Motion”); and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”),
(Doc. No. 39); recommending that this Court grant in part and deny in part the
Motion. The parties have not filed objections to the M&R and the time for doing so
has expired. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
I. BACKGROUND
No party has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s statement of the factual and
procedural background of this case. Therefore, the Court adopts the facts as set forth
in the M&R.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A district court may assign dispositive pretrial matters, including motions to
1
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);
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 or conclusory objections that do not direct
the court to a specific error in the magistrate judge’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 note).
III. DISCUSSION
Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court judge
shall 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 conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. See Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (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 covered in the M&R. Nevertheless, this Court has conducted a
2
full review of the M&R and other documents of record and, having done so, hereby
finds that the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is, in all respects, in
accordance with the law and should be approved. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS
the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its own.
IV. CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The Magistrate Judge’s M&R, (Doc. No. 39), is ADOPTED; and
2. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education and Anthony Perkins’s Motion
To Dismiss, (Doc. No. 27), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
That is, GRANTED as to official capacity claims filed against Defendant
Perkins, the state-law claims against CMS, and the § 1983 claims against
Perkins, and DENIED in all other respects.
August 7, 2019
Bate Cree f
Robert J. Conrad, Jr. es
United States District Judge “ee