United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division
August 29, 2014
PEAK RESORTS, LLC, Plaintiff,
SKI THE RIDGES, LLC SCENIC WOLF DEVELOPMENT, LLC ENGLISH SLOPES INVESTMENTS, LLC WOLF RIDGE INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, LLC, Defendants.
MAX O. COGBURN, Jr., District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the court on review of a Memorandum and Recommendation issued in this matter. In the Memorandum and Recommendation, the magistrate judge advised the parties of the right to file objections within 14 days, all in accordance with 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(c). No objections have been filed within the time allowed.
The Federal Magistrates Act of 1979, as amended, provides that "a district court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Camby v. Davis , 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir.1983). 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). Similarly, de novo review is not required by the statute "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 . Moreover, the statute does not on its face require any review at all of issues that are not the subject of an objection. Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Camby v. Davis , 718 F.2d at 200. Nonetheless, a district judge is responsible for the final determination and outcome of the case, and accordingly the court has conducted a careful review of the magistrate judge's recommendation.
After such careful review, the court determines that the recommendation of the magistrate judge is fully consistent with and supported by current law. Further, the brief factual background and recitation of issues is supported by the applicable pleadings. Having been properly cautioned by the court upon withdrawal of corporate counsel and corporate plaintiff having failed to thereafter appear by and through counsel, the court is left with no option other than to dismiss this action without prejudice. Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council , 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993) ("It has been the law for the better part of two centuries... that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.").
Based on such determinations, the court will fully affirm the Memorandum and Recommendation and grant relief in accordance therewith.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Memorandum and Recommendation (#15) is AFFIRMED, and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice as to the corporate plaintiff refiling this action by and through counsel.