# Slaughter v. The City of Newton

> District Court, W.D. North Carolina · September 17, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11139987

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** September 17, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11139987

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge to which no objections have been raised

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-CV-00251-KDB-DCK

DEREK SLAUGHTER,

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND
ORDER
THE CITY OF NEWTON,
NEWTON POLICE
DEPARTMENT,
DONALD BROWN,
JONATHAN FRANKLIN,
VIDAL SIPE,
BRIAN KELLY,
MARK BEAL, AND
TIMOTHY HAYES,

Defendants.

THIS MATTER THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. No. 11); the Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) of the Honorable Magistrate
David C. Keesler (Doc. No. 19), recommending that Defendants’ Motion be granted in part and
denied in part. The parties have not filed an objection 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. See Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985) (explaining the Court is not required to review, under a de
novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge to which no
objections have been raised).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A district court may designate a magistrate judge to “submit to a judge of the court
proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition” of dispositive pretrial matters.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any party may object to the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and
recommendations, and the court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the

report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). However, “in 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” and need not give any explanation for adopting the
M&R. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005); Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). Also, the Court does not perform a de novo review where
a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific
error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d
44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). After reviewing the record, the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole

or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge or recommit the matter
with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
III. DISCUSSION
Having carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s M&R, the Parties’ briefs, and applicable
legal authority, this Court is satisfied that there is no clear error as to the M&R, to which no
objection was made.  Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315. Accordingly, this Court will adopt the findings
and recommendations set forth in the M&R as its own solely for the purpose of deciding the
motions before it.
IV. ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Magistrate Judge’s M&R (Doc. No. 19) is ADOPTED;
2. Defendants’ Motion Dismiss (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part as set forth in the M&R; and
3. This case shall proceed toward trial on the merits of the remaining claims in
the absence of a voluntary resolution of the dispute among the parties.

Signed oO RED ADJUDGED AND DECREED.

Kenneth D, Bell
United States District Judge □□ i

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11139987. Public record. Not legal advice.