Kernea et al v. City of Charlotte et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:22-cv-00659-MEO-DCK
MICHAEL KERNEA and CHRISTY
KERNEA,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF CHARLOTTE and LEE
LOWERY,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant City of Charlotte’s Motion to Dismiss,
(Doc. No. 51), and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”), (Doc.
No. 69), recommending that this Court grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s 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 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 district court may assign dispositive pretrial matters, including motions to dismiss, to a
magistrate judge for “proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition” of such
matters. 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.
Case 3:22-cv-00659-MEO-DCK Document 71 Filed 01/09/26 Page 1 of 3

2
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)
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199–200
(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, 149–52 (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. 69), is ADOPTED;
Case 3:22-cv-00659-MEO-DCK Document 71 Filed 01/09/26 Page 2 of 3

3
2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 51), is GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part; and
3. 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.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: January 8, 2026
Case 3:22-cv-00659-MEO-DCK Document 71 Filed 01/09/26 Page 3 of 3