United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
Reidinger United States District Judge
MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 15]; the Magistrate Judge's
Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 23] regarding the
disposition of said motion; and the pro se
Plaintiff's Response, which the Court construes as
Objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 24].
March 16, 2017, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se,
brought this action against the Defendant Tribal Casino
Gaming Enterprise, asserting claims of employment
discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634
(“ADEA”). [Doc. 1]. The Plaintiff filed an
Amended Complaint on April 5, 2017. [Doc. 6].
the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint
pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. [Doc. 15]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b) and the Standing Orders of Designation of this Court,
the Honorable Dennis L. Howell, United States Magistrate
Judge, was designated to consider the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss and to submit a recommendation for its
disposition. On September 8, 2017, the Magistrate Judge
issued a Memorandum and Recommendation, which recommended
that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be granted. [Doc.
March 31, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a pleading entitled
“Plaintiff's Response to Court's Memorandum and
Recommendation” [Doc. 24], which the Court construes as
Objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Magistrate Act requires a district court to
“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). In order “to preserve for appeal an
issue in a magistrate judge's report, a party must object
to the finding or recommendation on that issue with
sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district
court of the true ground for the objection.” United
States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th
Cir. 2007). 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. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150
(1985). Additionally, the Court need not conduct 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).
Plaintiff has filed what purports to be objections to the
Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation. The
Plaintiff's filing, however, does not identify any
specific error in the Magistrate Judge's proposed
conclusions of law. Rather, the Plaintiff simply restates the
allegations made in her Amended Complaint and the arguments
asserted in her Response to the Defendant Motion to Dismiss.
These kinds of objections do not warrant a de novo
review of the Magistrate Judge's reasoning. Aldrich
v. Bock, 327 F.Supp.2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004)
(“A general objection, or one that merely restates the
arguments previously presented is not sufficient to alert the
court to alleged errors on the part of the magistrate judge.
An ‘objection' that does nothing more than state a
disagreement with a magistrate's suggested resolution, or
simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an
‘objection' as that term is used in this
careful review of the Memorandum and Recommendation, the
Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's proposed
conclusions of law (particularly including the jurisdictional
issues addressed therein) are correct and are consistent with
current case law, including Supreme Court precedent.
Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts the Magistrate
Judge's recommendation that the Defendant's motion to
dismiss should be granted on the grounds of tribal sovereign
conducted a careful review of the Memorandum and
Recommendation, the Court concludes that the Magistrate
Judge's proposed conclusions of law are supported by and
are consistent with current case law.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the
Plaintiffs Objections to the Magistrate Judge's
Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 24] are
OVERRULED, and the ...