Ahmedv.Porter

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte DivisionJan 7, 2010
1:09cv101-RJC-DLH (W.D.N.C. Jan. 7, 2010)

1:09cv101-RJC-DLH.

January 7, 2010


ORDER


ROBERT CONRAD JR., District Judge

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Fourth Memorandum and Recommendation ("M R") (Doc. No. 221). The parties were advised that objections were to be filed in writing within fourteen (14) days after service of the Magistrate Judge's decision. (Doc. No. 221 at 11). The time for filing objections has since passed, and no objections have been filed by any party in this matter. For the reasons stated below, the Court will affirm the M R in its entirety.

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, after a careful review of the record in this case, 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. Thus, the Court hereby accepts the M R of the Magistrate Judge and adopts it as the final decision of this Court for all purposes relating to this case.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:

1. defendant Secor Group, LLC's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 41(b) or, in the Alternative, to Compel Plaintiffs to File Notice and Enlarge Secor's Time to Respond to Second Amended Complaint (#155) is DENIED without prejudice as MOOT;
2. defendant Secor Group, LLC's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint, or for More Definite Statement (#175) is DENIED without prejudice as MOOT;
3. plaintiffs Naseem Ahmed's, Tahmeena Ahmed's, Kevin Bonner's, Shannon Bonner's, Mario Carcamo's, Owen McCarthy's, and Dorothia McCarthy's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) (without prejudice) (#187) is GRANTED without prejudice as to Naseem Ahmed, Tahmeena Ahmed, Kevin Bonner, Shannon Bonner, and Mario Carcamo, and DENIED without prejudice as to Owen McCarthy and Dorothia McCarthy;
4. plaintiffs' Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of the Claims Against Defendant John Perry Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) (without prejudice) (#200) is ALLOWED, and defendant John Perry is DISMISSED from this action without prejudice;
5. plaintiffs' Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of the Claims Against Defendant P. G. Capital Holdings, L.L.C., Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) (without prejudice) (#203) is ALLOWED, and defendant P. G. Capital Holdings, L.L.C., is DISMISSED from this action without prejudice;
6. defendant United Community Bank's Motion to Confirm Arbitration Awards Against Plaintiffs Marjorie J. Biller, Dorothia E. McCarthy, Owen M. McCarthy, and Jeffrey B. McNeal and for Entry of Judgment Thereon (#204), is ALLOWED and JUDGMENTS shall be entered CONFIRMING such awards in arbitration. The Court further DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE any remaining claims of plaintiffs Marjorie J. Biller, Dorothia E. McCarthy, Owen M. McCarthy, and Jeffrey B. McNeal; and
7. plaintiffs Miriam Benard's and Michael Crandus's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) (#217) is ALLOWED, and these two plaintiffs and their claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.