Ramseur v. Davita North Charlotte Dialysis Center

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-CV-00319-KDB-DCK

GISELLE MONIQUE RAMSEUR,

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DAVITA NORTH CHARLOTTE DIALYSIS CENTER; NOVANT HEALTH, INC.; FNU SANGHANI; PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL; FNU LNU; PIEDMONT MEDICAL CENTER; AND HOSPICE OF CHARLOTTE,

Defendants.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 10, 13, 15, 23, 35); Plaintiff’s Verified Equitable Motion for Honorary Naming as Part of Restitution in Equity (“Plaintiff’s Motion for Honorary Naming”) (Doc. No. 60); the Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) of the Honorable Magistrate Judge David C. Keesler (Doc. No. 63), recommending that Defendants’ Motions be granted and that Plaintiff’s Motion for Honorary Naming be denied as moot; and Plaintiff’s Opposition to the M&R (Doc. No. 64). For the reasons briefly discussed below, the Court will ADOPT the M&R, GRANT Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, and DENY as moot Plaintiff’s Motion for Honorary Naming. 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. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985) (explaining the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge to which no objections have been raised). II. LEGAL STANDARD A district court may designate a magistrate judge to “submit to a judge of the court

proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition” of dispositive pretrial 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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). Also, the Court does not perform a de novo review where

a party makes only “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). 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 While Plaintiff has filed an Objection to the M&R, see Doc. No. 64, she fails to point to any “specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano, 687 F.2d at 47. Instead, she alleges only that the Magistrate Judge’s neutrality is compromised because he recommended granting Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. Doc. No. 64 at 3. Having carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s M&R, the Parties’ briefs, and applicable legal authority, this Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts which support her belief that Magistrate Judge Keesler lacked neutrality. Moreover, the Court is satisfied that there is no clear error as to the M&R. Accordingly, this Court will adopt the findings and recommendations set forth in the M&R as its own solely for the purpose of deciding the motions before it. IV. ORDER NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s M&R (Doc. No. 63) is ADOPTED; 2. Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 10, 13, 15, 23, 35) are GRANTED; 3. Plaintiffs Motion for Honorary Naming (Doc. No. 60) is DENIED as moot; and 4. The Clerk is directed to close this matter in accordance with this Order. SO ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED.

Signed: September 2, 2025

Kenneth D. Bell United States District Judge woe