AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Judges

MICHAEL CARRICK, Petitioner, v. DISCLOSURE SPECIALIST BRENDA SPENCER, Internal Re

MEMORANDUM ORDER

RICHARD VOORHEES, District Judge

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Respondent's Motion to Dismiss or Deny Petition for Writ of Mandamus, filed April 3, 2003. (Document #5)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Chief United States Magistrate Judge H. Brent McKnight was designated to consider and recommend disposition in the aforesaid motion. In an opinion filed June 9, 2003, the Chief Magistrate Judge recommended that Respondent's motion be granted. (M R at 3.) The time for filing objections has since passed, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and no objections have been filed by either party in this matter.

United States District Court Judge for the Western District of North Carolina as of August 5, 2003.

After a careful review of the Memorandum Recommendation, the Court finds that the Chief Magistrate Judge's findings of fact are supported by the record and his conclusions of law are consistent with and well supported by current case law. See Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982) (holding that only a careful review is required in considering a memorandum and recommendation absent specific objections.) Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts the Memorandum Recommendation of the Chief Magistrate Judge and adopts it as the final decision of this Court for all purposes relating to this case.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss or Deny Petition for Writ of Mandamus is hereby GRANTED.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

CARRICK v. DISCLOSURE SPECIALIST BRENDA SPENCER
(Sep 2, 2003)