Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV-00137-RLV-DCK
06-10-2016
ALVIN LINEBERGER, Plaintiff, v. NEWTON POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL., Defendants.
ORDER
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 54) and the Memorandum and Recommendation (the "M&R") of Judge David Keesler (Doc. No. 58). In the M&R, Judge Keesler recommends that the Defendants' Motion be denied-as-moot and without prejudice because leave was granted to the Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint. A Second Amended Complaint was filed on May 16, 2016. See [Doc. No. 59]. The parties have not filed objections to the M&R, and the time for doing so has expired. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72(b)(2).
II. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
The Federal Magistrate Act provides that a court may "designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings . . . and to submit . . . proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition [of dispositive motions.]" 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). "[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); accord Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72(b)(3). "By contrast, in 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 & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Note).
B. Analysis
Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), 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. A party's failure to make timely objection is accepted as an agreement with the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). No objection to the M&R having been filed, and the time for doing so having expired, the parties have waived their right to de novo review of any issue discussed in the M&R.
After a careful review of the record, the Court finds that Judge Keesler's M&R is supported by the record and is consistent with and supported by law. Finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its own. See [Doc. No. 58]. Because the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 59) supersedes the First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 14), Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 54) is hereby DENIED-AS-MOOT and without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: June 10, 2016
/s/_________
Richard L. Voorhees
United States District Judge