The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:23-cv-00647-GCM-DCK
CRAIG MESICK and JOYCE )
MESICK, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD ) ORDER
OF EDUCATION, CATHERINE )
TRUITT, DONALD VAN DER )
VAART1, and NORTH CAROLINA )
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE )
HEARINGS, )
)
Defendants. )
)
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants North Carolina Office of
Administrative Hearings and Donald van der Vaart’s Motion to Dismiss Second
Amended Complaint, (Doc. No. 57), Defendants North Carolina State Board of
Education and Catherine Truitt’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, (Doc.
No. 60), and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”),
(Doc. No. 75), recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ motions. 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).
1 Plaintiffs sued “Donald Van Ver Vaart”. (Doc. No. 56 at 1). Defendants corrected the
misnomer in their motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 57 at 1 n.1).
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
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. 75), is ADOPTED;
2. Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, (Doc. Nos. 57, 60), are GRANTED; and
3. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case.
Signed: June 12, 2025
Graham C. Mullen ee
United States District Judge mga