North Carolina Cases March 07, 2022: Judicial Watch, Inc. v. N.C. State Bd. of Elections
Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina
Date: March 7, 2022
Case Description
1
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS KAREN BRINSON BELL MECKLENBURG COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS MICHAEL G. DICKERSON HORACE KIMEL JR. CAROL HILL WILLIAMS STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA GUILFORD COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS CHARLIE COLLICUTT, Defendants.
No. 3:20-cv-00211-RJC-DCK
United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
March 7, 2022
ORDER
ROBERT J. CONRAD, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the League of Women Voters of North Carolina and the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute's motion to intervene and motion to expedite consideration (Doc. Nos. 19, 41), Defendants' motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 38, 39), Plaintiff's motion for extension of time for service of process (Doc. No. 42), Plaintiff's motion for hearing (Doc. No. 55), the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) (Doc. No. 61), Plaintiff's motion to vacate the M&R and response in opposition (Doc. Nos. 71, 73), and the parties' joint stipulation of dismissal of this action (Doc. No. 72).
On February 17, 2022, Plaintiff and all Defendants filed a stipulation to dismiss this action with prejudice after fully resolving the matter. Despite dismissal, Plaintiff requests the Court retain jurisdiction to vacate the M&R. After full review and consideration of Plaintiff's motion to vacate
2
and response in opposition the Court concludes vacating the M&R is not appropriate. However, the parties have fully resolved this matter and voluntarily stipulated to a full dismissal of the action with prejudice; therefore, the Court declines to adopt the M&R because the motions considered by the M&R are now moot.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. The League of Women Voters of North Carolina and the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute's motion to intervene and motion to expedite consideration of the motion to intervene (Doc. Nos. 19, 41) are DENIED as moot ;
2. Defendants' motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 38, 39) are DENIED as moot ;
3. Plaintiffs motion for extension of time for service of process (Doc. No. 42) is DENIED as moot ;
4. Plaintiffs motion for hearing (Doc. No. 55) is DENIED as moot ;
5. Plaintiffs motion to vacate the M&R is DENIED (Doc. Nos. 71);
6. The Court declines to adopt the Magistrate Judge's M&R (Doc. No. 61) because the motions considered by the M&R are moot; and
7 This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.