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

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.
G&J GENERAL CONTRACTOR,
LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
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
Case 3:23-cv-00885-MEO-DCK Document 66 Filed 01/23/26 Page 1 of 3

2
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.
Case 3:23-cv-00885-MEO-DCK Document 66 Filed 01/23/26 Page 2 of 3

3
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
Case 3:23-cv-00885-MEO-DCK Document 66 Filed 01/23/26 Page 3 of 3