You're viewing Docket Item 10 from the case Data Driven Safety, Inc. v. Driver's History, Inc.. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

CHARLOTTE DIVISION

3:12-cv-415-RJC-DCK

DATA DRIVEN SAFETY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

DRIVER’S HISTORY, INC.,

Defendant.



)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss, (Doc. No.

4), and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”), (Doc. No. 9),

recommending that this Court deny Defendant’s Motion without prejudice. 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).

I.

BACKGROUND

Neither party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's statement of the factual and

procedural background of this case, and the Court thus adopts the facts as set forth in the M&R.

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court may assign dispositive pretrial matters pending before the court to a

magistrate judge for “proposed findings of fact and recommendations.” 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(B). The Federal Magistrate Act 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.” Id. at § 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

Case 3:12-cv-00415-RJC-DCK Document 10 Filed 12/07/12 Page 1 of 3

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. “[I]n 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.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.

2005) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory committee’s 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. FED. R. CIV. 72(b). No objection to the M&R having been filed, 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 and careful 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. Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(2) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is denied

without prejudice to Defendant’s ability to re-file a similar motion at a later date if discovery

reveals additional or different facts that might affect the Court’s jurisdictional determination.

Defendant’s alternate Motion to Transfer Venue is also denied without prejudice.

IV.

CONCLUSION

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s M&R, (Doc. No. 9), is

ADOPTED and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Transfer, (Doc. No. 4), is DENIED without

2

Case 3:12-cv-00415-RJC-DCK Document 10 Filed 12/07/12 Page 2 of 3

prejudice.

Signed: December 7, 2012

3

Case 3:12-cv-00415-RJC-DCK Document 10 Filed 12/07/12 Page 3 of 3