UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:18-cv-00257-RJC-DCK

RACHEL CARTER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ORDER ALADDIN FOOD SERVICES, EVELYN ) HILL, SHARON COTTON, FNU ITHEL, ) and TAMELA SHANKLE, ) ) Defendants. ) )

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants Aladdin Food Management Services, Evelyn Hill, Sharon Cotton, and Tamela Shankle’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, (Doc. No. 22), and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”), (Doc. No. 27). I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed a Complaint on May 15, 2018. (Doc. No. 1.) Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint on May 9, 2019. (Doc. No. 22.) In the M&R, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this Court grant Defendants’ motion. (Doc. No. 27, at 7.) The Magistrate Judge advised the parties of their right to file objections within fourteen days, (Doc. No. 27, at 7); however, no objections were filed, and the time for doing so has expired. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The district court may assign dispositive pretrial matters pending before the court to a magistrate judge for “proposed findings of fact and recommendations.”

(b)(1)(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.”

at § 636(b)(1); Camby v. Davis,

(4th Cir. 1983). “[I]n 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 & Acc. Ins. Co.,

(4th

Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). III. DISCUSSION As no objection to the M&R has been made, the parties have waived their right to de novo review of any issues covered in the M&R. After review of the M&R and the entire record, the Court determines that the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is fully consistent with and supported by current law. Therefore, the Court

adopts the M&R. IV. CONCLUSION IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s M&R, (Doc. No. 27), is ADOPTED; and 2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, (Doc. No. 22), is GRANTED. Signed: February 7, 2020

/ yall ae Robert J. Conrad, Jr. Red. United States District Judge ae