Hamdan v. Int'l, Inc.

This matter is before this court for review of the Memorandum Opinion, Order, and Recommendation ("Recommendation") filed on September 17, 2012, by the Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). (Doc. 37.) In the Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 17) be granted. The Recommendation was served on the parties to this action on September 17, 2012. Plaintiff filed timely objections (Doc. 40) to the Recommendation.

This court is required to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the [Magistrate Judge's] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). De novo review is not required, however, "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." Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). This court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the [M]agistrate [J]udge. . . . [O]r recommit the matter to the [M]agistrate [J]udge with instructions." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Although Plaintiff did not specifically object to any of the Magistrate Judge's proposed findings or recommendations, this court has reviewed the Recommendation in its entirety and has made a de novo determination which is in accord with the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation. This court therefore adopts the Recommendation.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (Doc. 37) is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 17) is GRANTED.

A Judgment dismissing this action will be entered contemporaneously with this Order.

_________________

United States District Judge