Opinion
DOCKET NO. 1:15-cv-00105-MOC-DLH
04-19-2016
KATRINA ENNIS, Plaintiff, v. MISSION MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, 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). 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, 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.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Memorandum and Recommendation (#25) is AFFIRMED, defendant's Motion to Dismiss (#16) is GRANTED, plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim is DISMISSED with prejudice in accordance with Rule 12(b)(6), and plaintiff's other Title VII claims, which she failed to first raise before the EEOC, are DISMISSED without prejudice in accordance with Rule 12(b)(1), and this action is TERMINATED.
Signed: April 19, 2016
/s/_________
Max O. Cogburn Jr.
United States District Judge