Deacon v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., 19-711. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Number: infdco20190425b13
Visitors: 6
Filed: Apr. 24, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 24, 2019
Summary: ORDER CARL BARBIER , District Judge . Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation from the Magistrate Judge (Rec. Doc. 9), Plaintiff's objection (Rec. Doc. 10), and BP's response (Rec. Doc. 11). The Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff's BELO complaint be dismissed with prejudice because it was not filed within six months of being notified by the Claims Administrator of BP's election not to mediate, as required under the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement VIII(G
Summary: ORDER CARL BARBIER , District Judge . Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation from the Magistrate Judge (Rec. Doc. 9), Plaintiff's objection (Rec. Doc. 10), and BP's response (Rec. Doc. 11). The Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff's BELO complaint be dismissed with prejudice because it was not filed within six months of being notified by the Claims Administrator of BP's election not to mediate, as required under the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement VIII(G)..
More
ORDER
CARL BARBIER, District Judge.
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation from the Magistrate Judge (Rec. Doc. 9), Plaintiff's objection (Rec. Doc. 10), and BP's response (Rec. Doc. 11). The Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff's BELO complaint be dismissed with prejudice because it was not filed within six months of being notified by the Claims Administrator of BP's election not to mediate, as required under the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement § VIII(G)(1)(b). After considering Plaintiff's objections de novo,1 the Court hereby approves the Report and Recommendation and adopts it as its opinion in this matter. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that BP' Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 4) is GRANTED and plaintiff's complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
FootNotes
1. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). BP contends that the standard of review is clearly erroneous, as opposed to de novo, when the objector merely re-urges the same legal arguments presented to the Magistrate Judge, as Plaintiff has done here. Because the outcome would be the same regardless of which standard is applied, the Court does not address this argument and simply applies the standard most favorable to the Plaintiff in this instance, de novo.
Source: Leagle
