Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
In these consolidated appeals, Appellants appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge, granting the motions to dismiss filed by Xata Corporation (“Xata”), and dismissing their product liability claims. We affirm.
Appellants’ product liability claims arose from a motor vehicle accident on Interstate 40 in North Carolina. Carroll Jett drove a fully loaded tractor-trailer into vehicles that were slowed or stopped in front of him, causing injuries to the Dur-kees and resulting in the death of the Baileys’ child. Appellants alleged that Jett became distracted by the presence of a texting system located in the cab of his truck. The texting system had been manufactured by a subsidiary of Xata.
Appellants contended that Xata owed them a legal duty of care because injuries to the traveling public were reasonably foreseeable based on the texting system’s design that (1) required the driver to divert his eyes from the road to view an incoming text from the dispatcher, and (2) permitted the receipt of texts while the vehicle was moving. The district court granted Xata’s motions to dismiss,1 concluding that the accident was caused by the driver’s inattention, not the texting device itself, and that manufacturers are not required to design a product incapable of distracting a driver.2
On appeal, Appellants challenge the district court’s conclusion that Xata owed them no duty of care. Our de novo review *328of the record leads us to conclude that the district court properly dismissed Appellants’ claims. See Robinson v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 551 F.3d 218, 222 (4th Cir.2009) (discussing standard of review); see also N.C. Gen.Stat. § 99B-6(a) (2011) (providing elements to prove inadequate product design); Smith v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs. Co., 278 F.Supp.2d 684, 706 (W.D.N.C.2003) (providing elements of product liability action based upon negligence); Kientz v. Carlton, 245 N.C. 236, 96 S.E.2d 14, 18 (1957) (holding that duty owed by product manufacturer “does not require him to guard against hazards apparent to the casual observer or to protect against injuries resulting from the user’s own patently careless and improvident conduct”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Appellants also argue that the district court failed to accept the allegations contained in the complaints as true. We conclude that the district court properly construed the facts in Appellants’ favor. The court, however, was not required to accept as correct the complaints’ legal conclusions. Robinson, 551 F.3d at 222.
We therefore affirm the judgments of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.