Opinion
3:08-cv-569.
October 30, 2009
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendant's amended counterclaims (Doc. No. 23). The magistrate judge's memorandum and recommendation ("M R") (Doc. No. 37) recommended that the motion be denied as moot because defendant was granted permission to file second amended counterclaims (Doc. No. 36). Defendant filed its second amended counterclaims on October 8, 2009. (Doc. No. 37). The parties were advised that objections were to be filed in writing within ten (10) days after service of the magistrate judge's decision. (Doc. No. 37 at 2-3). The time for filing objections has since passed and no objections have been filed by either party in this matter. For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES plaintiff's motion to dismiss.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
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." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 198 (4th Cir. 1983). "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's note).
II. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court finds that the magistrate judge's findings of fact are supported by the record and his conclusions of law are consistent with and supported by current case law. See Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982) (holding that only a careful review is required in considering a memorandum and recommendation absent specific objections). Thus, the Court hereby accepts the M R and adopts it as the final decision of this Court for all purposes relating to this case.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 23) is DENIED as moot.