Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Optis Wireless Technology, LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., 2:17-cv-00123-JRG-RSP. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. Texas Number: infdco20180516i31 Visitors: 12
Filed: May 15, 2018
Latest Update: May 15, 2018
Summary: ORDER RODNEY GILSTRAP , District Judge . Before the court is the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Payne, which recommends that Plaintiffs' motion for an anti-suit injunction be denied without prejudice. ECF No. 137. For dispositive matters referred to a magistrate judge, the district court must "determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C). "The district judge may accept
More

ORDER

Before the court is the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Payne, which recommends that Plaintiffs' motion for an anti-suit injunction be denied without prejudice. ECF No. 137. For dispositive matters referred to a magistrate judge, the district court must "determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). "The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommend disposition." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). No objections have been filed, and the time to do so has now passed. Accordingly, upon de novo review, the report and recommendation is ADOPTED, and Plaintiffs' motion for an anti-suit injunction, ECF No. 76, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer