From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

James v. Vanderbilt Mortg. & Fin., Inc.

United States District Court For The Western District of North Carolina Charlotte Division
Feb 10, 2012
3:11cv498 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 10, 2012)

Opinion

3:11cv498

02-10-2012

BETTY JAMES; and WILLIE JAMES, Plaintiffs, v. VANDERBILT MORTGAGE AND FINANCE, INC.; and DEIDRE D. DEFLORENTIS, Substitute Trustee, Defendants.


ORDER

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). The deadline for filing objections was February 9, 2012. No objection were 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 recommendation of the magistrate judge is fully consistent with and supported by current law. Further, the 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.

ORDER

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Memorandum and Recommendation (#14) is AFFIRMED, Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc.'s "Motion to Dismiss" (#7) is GRANTED, the Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

_____________

Max O. Cogburn Jr.

United States District Judge


Summaries of

James v. Vanderbilt Mortg. & Fin., Inc.

United States District Court For The Western District of North Carolina Charlotte Division
Feb 10, 2012
3:11cv498 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 10, 2012)
Case details for

James v. Vanderbilt Mortg. & Fin., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Betty James and Willie James, Plaintiff(s), v. Vanderbilt Mortgage and…

Court:United States District Court For The Western District of North Carolina Charlotte Division

Date published: Feb 10, 2012

Citations

3:11cv498 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 10, 2012)

Citing Cases

Mansfield v. Vanderbilt Mortg. & Fin., Inc.

Tellingly, plaintiff's complaint includes no factual allegations against the defendant trustees, but rather…