The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:19-cv-00226-RJC-DSC
LISA CAROL RUDISILL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
) ORDER
NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF )
ELECTIONS and ROY A. COOPER, III, )
)
Defendants. )
)
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.
1 On September 27, 2019, Plaintiff submitted a letter addressed to the Magistrate
Judge, (Doc. No. 16); however, the letter presents “general thoughts on the direction
of courts in America these days,” rather than objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
findings or recommendation.
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.
Signed: October 8, 2019
Robert J. Conrad, Jr. ae,
United States District Judge Moe