ROSS & BARUZZINI, INC. v. THE ESTOPINAL GROUP, LLC, 12-CV-0152-DRH. (2013)
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20130605a24
Visitors: 3
Filed: Jun. 04, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 04, 2013
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON, Chief District Judge. On May 14, 2013, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B), United States Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier submitted a Report and Recommendation ("the Report") recommending that the Court deny plaintiff's motion for sanctions (Doc. 53). The Report found that there "is not enough here to permit a reasonable inference that TEG destroyed documents in bad faith. Sanctions are not warranted in these particular circumstances." The Report wa
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON, Chief District Judge. On May 14, 2013, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B), United States Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier submitted a Report and Recommendation ("the Report") recommending that the Court deny plaintiff's motion for sanctions (Doc. 53). The Report found that there "is not enough here to permit a reasonable inference that TEG destroyed documents in bad faith. Sanctions are not warranted in these particular circumstances." The Report was..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DAVID R. HERNDON, Chief District Judge.
On May 14, 2013, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), United States Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier submitted a Report and Recommendation ("the Report") recommending that the Court deny plaintiff's motion for sanctions (Doc. 53). The Report found that there "is not enough here to permit a reasonable inference that TEG destroyed documents in bad faith. Sanctions are not warranted in these particular circumstances."
The Report was sent to the parties with a notice informing them of their right to appeal by way of filing "objections" by May 31, 2013. To date, none of the parties have filed objections, and the period in which to file objections has expired. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court need not conduct de novo review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985).
Thus, the Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 53). The Court DENIES plaintiff's motion for sanctions (Doc. 40).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
