Summary
In Disabled Patriots of Am., Inc. v. Fu, No. 3:08CV542, 2009 WL 1470687 (W.D.N.C. May 26, 2009), the court found standing based, in part, on the plaintiff's representation that he planned to visit the defendant's place of business annually to assess its compliance with the ADA.
Summary of this case from Nat'l Alliance for Accessibility, Inc. v. Triad Hospitality Corp.Opinion
3:08CV542-RJC-DSC.
May 26, 2009
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support (Doc. Nos. 9 and 10), the Plaintiff's Response (Doc. No. 12), the Defendant's Reply (Doc. No. 14), and the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation ("M R") (Doc. No. 19), which recommended that the motion be granted. The parties were advised to file objections in writing within ten (10) days after service of the Magistrate Judge's decision. (Doc. No. 19: M R at 11). The time for objections has run and neither party filed any objections. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Federal Magistrate Act provides that a district court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 198 (4th Cir. 1983). "By contrast, 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.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
II. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, after a careful review of the record in this case, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's findings of fact are supported by the record and his conclusions of law are consistent with and 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). Thus, the Court hereby accepts the M R of Magistrate Judge Cayer and adopts it as the final decision of this Court for all purposes relating to this case.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 9) is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.