The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00797-FDW-DCK
SAVANNAH HUCKS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
WELLPATH, LLC, ET AL., )
)
Defendants. )
)
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Mecklenburg County’s Motion to
Dismiss, (Doc. No. 47), Defendants Crystal Ballard and Wellpath, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss,
(Doc. No. 51), Defendants L. Brown, Garry L. McFadden, and Unique Philips’s Motion to
Dismiss, (Doc. No. 54), and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation
(“M&R”), (Doc. No. 67), recommending that this Court administratively deny without prejudice
Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. 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).
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); 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 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. 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 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. 67), is ADOPTED; and
2. Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, (Doc. Nos. 47, 51, 54), are administratively
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: March 12, 2025
Frank D. Whitney Dae
Senior United States District Judge ye
et