OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

MELINDA HARMON, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is Defendant Nordana (USA), Inc.'s ("Nordana")1 Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 23), arguing that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the applicable limitations period, and the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation (Doc. 26), recommending that Nordana's Motion be granted. Plaintiff has not, to this date, filed a response to Defendant Nordana's Motion for Summary Judgment, and no objections have been filed by any party to the Memorandum and Recommendation.

When no timely objection to a magistrate judge's memorandum and recommendation is filed by any party, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record to accept the magistrate judge's memorandum and recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Industries, Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2008).

After carefully reviewing the record and the applicable law, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge, who has correctly cited and applied the law to the facts here that are supported by the uncontroverted summary judgment evidence.

Accordingly, the Court hereby

ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation (Doc. 26) as its own and

ORDERS that Defendant Nordana (USA), Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 23) is GRANTED and that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Nordana (USA), Inc. are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.