Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America v. G&J General Contractor,...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:23-cv-00885-MEO-DCK TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY ) COMPANY OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) G&J GENERAL CONTRACTOR, ) LLC, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America’s and Defendants Alejandro Lugo Hernandez, Brian Leepard, and L&L Construction Remodeling LLC’s Joint Motion for Entry of Dismissal Order (Doc. No. 56) and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) (Doc. No. 58), recommending that this Court grant the parties’ motion. 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 this case’s factual and procedural background. 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).

Any party may object to the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations, and the 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.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). However, “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” and need not give any explanation for adopting the M&R. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983). After reviewing the record, the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

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 has been filed, and the time for doing so has passed. Therefore, the parties have waived their 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, 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.

IV. CONCLUSION IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s M&R (Doc. No. 58) is ADOPTED; 2. The Parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Dismissal Order (Doc. No. 58) is GRANTED.

Specifically, Counts I and II of Travelers’ Amended Complaint against Lugo are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and Defendants’ Lugo, Leepard, and L&L Construction and Remodeling’s counterclaims against Travelers are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 3. The parties shall promptly conduct an Initial Attorney’s Conference and file a Certificate of Initial Attorney’s Conference pursuant to Local Rule 16.1; and 4. This case shall proceed toward trial on the merits of the remaining claims in the absence of a voluntary resolution of the dispute among the parties.

Signed: January 23, 2026 Matthew E. Orso ty United States District Judge ayy