Barrow v. Branch Banking & Trust Company, 3:16-cv-00675

Plaintiff Rascheca Barrow filed suit against Branch Banking & Trust Company; defendant moved to dismiss (Doc. No. 6).
Magistrate Judge issued a Memorandum, Recommendation, and Order (MR&O) granting Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to amend the complaint and recommending the denial of Defendant’s then-pending motion to dismiss as moot (Doc. No. 13).
No party filed objections to the MR&O within the Rule 72(b) objection period.
After the MR&O, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint pursuant to the MR&O (Doc. No. 14).
Defendant filed a second motion to dismiss directed at the amended complaint; that motion is pending before the magistrate judge.
The district court reviewed the MR&O and other record documents, adopted the MR&O, and dismissed Defendant’s first motion to dismiss as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s MR&O	Barrow did not object; she moved to amend and proceeded under MR&O	BB&T did not object to the MR&O and had its first motion pending	Court adopted the MR&O and denied/dismissed the first motion to dismiss as moot
Effect of failure to object to MR&O	Failure to object constitutes agreement and waives de novo review	Same: no timely objection, so no entitlement to de novo review	Court found waiver of de novo review and performed only a review for clear error before adopting MR&O
Standard of review for magistrate recommendations	MR&O’s legal conclusions can be reviewed without de novo if no factual dispute or objections	Magistrate recommendations are subject to de novo review only on timely, specific objections	Court applied the standard that no de novo review is required absent specific objections and accepted MR&O
Procedural consequence of amended complaint	Filing an amended complaint pursuant to MR&O renders initial dismissal motion moot	BB&T’s first motion targets the original complaint and is superseded by the amendment	Court dismissed BB&T’s first motion as moot; BB&T’s new motion against the amended complaint remains pending

Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44 (4th Cir. 1982) (de novo review unnecessary for unchallenged factual findings or conclusory objections)
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (when no objection is filed, district court need only ensure no clear error on the face of the record)
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (failure to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is treated as consent and waives right to de novo review)