govinfo:USCOURTS-ncwd-3_22-cv-00021-4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
CHARLOTTE DIVISION 
3:22-cv-00021-RJC-DCK 
 
 
ANDRÉ R. JACKSON, JR., 
 
Plaintiff,   
 
v. 
 
LOUIS DEJOY, Postmaster General, 
 
Defendant. 
                                                              
 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
  
 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
THIS MATTER  is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, 
(Doc. No. 30), and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation 
(“M&R”), recommending that this Court grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s 
motion, (Doc. No. 38). The parties have not filed objections to the M&R and the time 
for doing so has expired. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).  
I. BACKGROUND 
 No party has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s statement of the factual and 
procedural background of this case. Therefore, the Court adopts the facts as set forth 
in the M&R.  
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 
A district court may assign dispositive pretrial matters, including motions to 
dismiss, to a magistrate judge for “proposed findings of fact and recommendations.” 
28 U.S.C. §  636(b)(1)(A) & (B). The Federal Magistrate Act provides that a district 
court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified 
Case 3:22-cv-00021-MEO-DCK     Document 39     Filed 02/05/25     Page 1 of 3
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”  Id. § 636(b)(1)(C); 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 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). De novo review is also not 
required “when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct 
the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and 
recommendations.” Id. Similarly, when no objection is filed, “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 & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. 
P. 72, advisory committee note). 
III. DISCUSSION 
Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 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 a 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 passed, the parties have waived their right to de novo 
review of any issue co vered in the M&R. Nevertheless, this Court has conducted a 
review of the M&R and other documents of record and, having done so, hereby finds 
that the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is, in all respects, in accordance 
with the law and should be appro ved. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the 
Case 3:22-cv-00021-MEO-DCK     Document 39     Filed 02/05/25     Page 2 of 3
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its own. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that: 
1. The Magistrate Judge’s M&R, (Doc. No. 38), is ADOPTED; 
2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 30), is GRANTED in part  and 
DENIED in part. 
3. Specifically, Defendant’s motion is denied with respect to Plaintiff’s claim 
for retaliation in violation of Title VII based on the events of February 5, 
2021, and granted with respect to all other claims. 
 
Signed: February 5, 2025 
Case 3:22-cv-00021-MEO-DCK     Document 39     Filed 02/05/25     Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight