Repass v. TNT Crane & Rigging, Inc.
Repass v. TNT Crane & Rigging, Inc.
2021 WL 7448635 (W.D. Tex. 2021)
December 15, 2021
Counts, David, United States District Judge
Summary
A motion to dismiss an opt-in plaintiff was referred to a Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation that was adopted by the Court. No objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has expired. As a result, the motion to dismiss was granted.
Additional Decisions
Timothy REPASS and William McCandless, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
TNT CRANE AND RIGGING, INC., Defendant
v.
TNT CRANE AND RIGGING, INC., Defendant
No. MO:18-CV-00107-DC
United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Midland-Odessa Division
Signed December 15, 2021
Counsel
Aaron Michael Johnson, Fair Labor Law, Austin, TX, Daniel Anthony Verrett, Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Moreland Verrett, P.C., Wimberley, TX, for Plaintiffs.G. Mark Jodon, Kevin S. Little, Jonathan Andrew Sprague, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Houston, TX, for Defendant.
Counts, David, United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
*1 BEFORE THE COURT is United States Magistrate Judge Ronald C. Griffin's Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed in the above-captioned cause on September 17, 2021, in connection with Defendant TNT Crane and Rigging, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss Opt-In Plaintiff James Joy Rodgers. (Doc. 156). Neither party filed objections, and the deadline to do so has expired. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety (Doc. 158) and GRANTS Defendant's Motion. (Doc. 156).
Any party who desires to object to a Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations must serve and file written objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to file written objections to the R&R within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy shall bar that party from de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings and recommendations. Id.
Moreover, except upon grounds of plain error, it shall also bar the party from appellate review of proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court to which no objections were filed. Id.; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150–53 (1985); United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).
The Court reviewed the R&R for clear error, the Court finds it to be neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (Doc. 158) and GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Opt-In Plaintiff James Joy Rodgers (Doc. 156).
It is so ORDERED.