govinfo:USCOURTS-ncwd-3_23-cv-00347-3

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
CHARLOTTE DIVISION 
3:23-cv-00347-RJC-DCK 
 
 
MARKAYLE GRAY, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
CHARLOTTE SECONDARY SCHOOL 
INC., and BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF 
CHARLOTTE SECONDARY SCHOOL 
INC., 
 
Defendants. 
 
 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
)
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Board of Directors of 
Charlotte Secondary School Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 14), and the 
Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”), (Doc. No. 24), 
recommending that this Court deny Defendant’s motio n. 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.” 

2 
 
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 
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 m ake 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 the ir right to de novo 
review of any issue covered in the M&R. Nevertheless, this Court has conducted a 
full review of the M&R and other documents of record, and having done so, the Court 

3 
 
hereby finds that the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is, in all respects, in 
accordance with the law and should be approved. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS 
the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its own. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that: 
1. The Magistrate Judge’s M&R, (Doc. No. 24), is ADOPTED; 
2. Defendant Board of Directors of Charlotte Secondar y School Inc.’s Motion 
to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 14), is DENIED. 
 
Signed: May 30, 2024 

Passage view · GavelSight