FS Medical Supplies, LLC v. TannerGAP, Inc. et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH
CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:21-cv-00501-RJC-WCM
3:23-cv-00598-RJC-WCM
FS MEDICAL SUPPLIES, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
TANNERGAP, INC. AND TANNER
PHARMA UK LIMITED,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Order
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate, (Doc.
No. 127), and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”),
(Doc. No. 147), recommending that this Court grant in part Plaintiff’s Motion to
Consolidate and recommending deadlines to be entered in a separate Pretrial Order
and Case Management Plan. The parties have not filed objections to the M&R and
the time for doing so has expired. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Plaintiff filed a Certificate of
No Objection and Renewed Request for Entry of Pretrial Order. (Doc. No. 152).
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 magistrate judge may “hear and determine” nondispositive pretrial matters.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A);
see also Gupta v. Freddie Mac, 823 F. App’x 225, 226 (4th
Case 3:21-cv-00501-MR-WCM Document 165 Filed 03/14/24 Page 1 of 3

2
Cir. 2020) (per curiam);
Mvuri v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 776 F. App’x 810, 810–11 (4th
Cir. 2019) (per curiam). A party who opposes a magistrate judge’s order on a
nondispositive matter must “file objections to the order within 14 days after being
served with a copy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “The district judge in the case must consider
timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly
erroneous or is contrary to law.”
Id. However, a party “may not assign as error a defect
in the order not timely objected to.”
Id. See also Solis v. Malkani, 638 F.3d 269, 274
(4th Cir. 2011) (noting that failure to timely object to magistrate judge’s
determinations in either dispositive or nondispositive matters waives further review).
III. DISCUSSION
No objection to the M&R having been filed, and the time for doing so having
passed, the parties have waived their right to 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 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. 147), is ADOPTED;
2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate, (Doc. No. 127), is GRANTED in part
such that the matters will be consolidated for discovery purposes, and
Case 3:21-cv-00501-MR-WCM Document 165 Filed 03/14/24 Page 2 of 3

3
DENIED in part, in that the matters will not be consolidated for trial
at this time; and
3. A separate Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan will be entered
consistent with the recommendations provided by the Magistrate
Judge.
Signed: March 14, 2024
Case 3:21-cv-00501-MR-WCM Document 165 Filed 03/14/24 Page 3 of 3