Gott v. Neuman & Esser USA, Inc., 1:19-cv-4. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. Tennessee
Number: infdco20191119e27
Visitors: 11
Filed: Nov. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 18, 2019
Summary: ORDER HARRY S. MATTICE, JR. , District Judge . On November 1, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee filed a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 63) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Rules of this Court, and the Referral Order (Doc. 56). The Magistrate Judge recommends the Motion to Dismiss and for Sanctions (Doc. 53) filed by defendant Neuman & Esser USA, Inc., be denied. No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. 1 The Court has nonetheless reviewed the Repo
Summary: ORDER HARRY S. MATTICE, JR. , District Judge . On November 1, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee filed a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 63) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Rules of this Court, and the Referral Order (Doc. 56). The Magistrate Judge recommends the Motion to Dismiss and for Sanctions (Doc. 53) filed by defendant Neuman & Esser USA, Inc., be denied. No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. 1 The Court has nonetheless reviewed the Repor..
More
ORDER
HARRY S. MATTICE, JR., District Judge.
On November 1, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge Susan K. Lee filed a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 63) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court, and the Referral Order (Doc. 56). The Magistrate Judge recommends the Motion to Dismiss and for Sanctions (Doc. 53) filed by defendant Neuman & Esser USA, Inc., be denied. No party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation.1 The Court has nonetheless reviewed the Report and Recommendation, as well as the record, and agrees with Magistrate Judge Lee's well-reasoned conclusions.
Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Lee's findings of fact and conclusions of law as set forth in the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 63). Defendant Neuman & Esser USA, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss and for Sanctions (Doc. 53) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Magistrate Judge Lee advised that the parties had 14 days in which to object to the Report and Recommendation and that failure to do so would waive any right to appeal. (Doc. 63 at 8 n.3); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-51 (1985) ("It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate judge's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.").
Source: Leagle
