Filed: Oct. 20, 2016
Latest Update: Oct. 20, 2016
Summary: RECOMMENDATION and ORDER SUSAN RUSS WALKER , Chief Magistrate Judge . Upon consideration of the parties' joint stipulation of dismissal (Doc. 19), in which the parties request that the court enter an order dismissing without prejudice several named defendants, the undersigned Magistrate Judge hereby RECOMMENDS that the following defendants be dismissed without prejudice: Honda Motor Co., Ltd.; Honda R&D Americas, Inc.; Honda R&D Co., Ltd.; Honda North America, Inc.; Honda of America Mfg.
Summary: RECOMMENDATION and ORDER SUSAN RUSS WALKER , Chief Magistrate Judge . Upon consideration of the parties' joint stipulation of dismissal (Doc. 19), in which the parties request that the court enter an order dismissing without prejudice several named defendants, the undersigned Magistrate Judge hereby RECOMMENDS that the following defendants be dismissed without prejudice: Honda Motor Co., Ltd.; Honda R&D Americas, Inc.; Honda R&D Co., Ltd.; Honda North America, Inc.; Honda of America Mfg.,..
More
RECOMMENDATION and ORDER
SUSAN RUSS WALKER, Chief Magistrate Judge.
Upon consideration of the parties' joint stipulation of dismissal (Doc. 19), in which the parties request that the court enter an order dismissing without prejudice several named defendants, the undersigned Magistrate Judge hereby
RECOMMENDS that the following defendants be dismissed without prejudice: Honda Motor Co., Ltd.; Honda R&D Americas, Inc.; Honda R&D Co., Ltd.; Honda North America, Inc.; Honda of America Mfg., Inc.; and Honda Engineering North America, Inc.1
Should the presiding District Judge adopt this Recommendation, the only remaining named defendant will be American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
In addition, it is
ORDERED that Honda Motor Co., Ltd.; Honda R&D Americas, Inc.; Honda R&D Co., Ltd.; Honda North America, Inc.; Honda of America Mfg., Inc.; and Honda Engineering North America, Inc. are relieved of their obligation to respond to the notice of deficiency entered on October 11, 2016. (Doc. 23). If this Recommendation is not adopted by the District Judge such that any of these defendants remain as parties to this cause, these defendants shall respond to the notice of deficiency within seven days from the date the presiding District Judge enters a ruling on this Recommendation.
Finally, it is
ORDERED that the parties may file any objections to this Recommendation on or before November 3, 2016. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to which the party objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the magistrate judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982).
