Opinion
Civil Action No. 4:07-cv-3299-TLW-TER.
September 9, 2010
ORDER
AVX Corporation brought this action seeking to recover certain response costs associated with the release and threatened release of hazardous substances pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601, et. seq. and for a declaration of liability under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, to whom this case had previously been assigned. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that AVX's Motion to Amend its Complaint be denied. (Doc. # 144). Objections were due by July 12, 2010. No objections were filed.
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In the absence of objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. SeeCamby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. # 144). Therefore, the plaintiff's motion to amend is DENIED. (Doc. # 36).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 9, 2010
Florence, South Carolina