United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division
JUANITA L. JONES, Plaintiff,
J. CALVIN HILL JULIE M. KEPPLE PATRICIA K. YOUNG CITY OF ASHEVILLE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA MARTIN REIDINGER ROY COOPER RON MOORE EDWIN D. CLONTZ CHARLES E. BARNARD SAMUEL A. CATHEY PAUL SWANK BUNCOMBE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT ARROWHEAD GENERAL INSURANCE AGENCY PETER R. HENRY ALAN B. STYLES GEICO INSURANCE AGENCY INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA JOHN DOE 2 JOHN DOE 3 JOHN DOE 4 JOHN DOE 5 ANNIE M. BARNARD UNIVERSAL NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, 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. 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 (#25), as amended by Order (#29), is AFFIRMED, and Motions to Dismiss (#5, #7, #11, and #22) the original ...