UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION (at Lexington)

DANIEL SMOLKO, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-025-CHB-HAI ) v. ) ) MAPEI CORPORATION & ) ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE LOWE’S HOME IMPROVEMENT ) JUDGE’S REPORT AND CENTERS, LLC, ) RECOMMENDATION ) Defendants. )

*** *** *** *** This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram. [R. 89]. The Report and Recommendation addresses the Motion to Dismiss for Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply with Court Order to Provide Full Responses to Discovery filed by Defendant Lowe’s [R. 69], and the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution filed by Defendants Lowe’s and Mapei Corporation. [R. 83]. In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Ingram first found that dismissal was warranted based on the Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss despite the court’s repeated admonishments “concerning their duty to comply with the Federal Rules and Local Rules related to discovery and motions practice.” [R. 89, pp. 3–4]. In the alternative, Judge Ingram found “dismissal is also warranted for failure to obey discovery orders and for lack of prosecution” pursuant to Rules 37(b)(2)(A) and 41(b), and acknowledged the relevant factors for consideration as set forth in Schafer v. City of Defiance Police Dep’t,

, 737–38 (6th Cir. 2008).

at 4–7. Judge Ingram ultimately recommended that Defendants’ Motions be granted and this matter be dismissed with prejudice.

Magistrate Judge Ingram’s Report and Recommendation advised the parties that any objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days. Id. at 10. The time to file objections has passed, and neither party has filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation nor sought an extension of time to do so. Generally, this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report

and Recommendation to which objections are made.

(b)(1). When no objections are made, this Court is not required to “review . . . a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard.” See Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). Parties who fail to object to a Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition are also barred from appealing a district court’s order adopting that recommended disposition. United States v. White,

(6th Cir. 2017); United States v. Walters,

, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record and agrees with the Judge Ingram’s Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED as follows: 1. Judge Ingram’s Report and Recommendation [R. 89] is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. 2. Defendant Lowe’s Home Improvement Centers, LLC’s unopposed Motion to Dismiss for Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply with Court Order to Provide Full Responses to Discovery [R 69] is GRANTED. 3. Defendants Lowe’s Home Improvement Centers, LLC and Mapei Corporation’s unopposed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution [R. 83] is GRANTED. 4. This matter is DISMISSED with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(v) and for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 5. This matter is STRICKEN from the Court’s active docket. This the 25th day of January, 2023. ATER, . KA Wo, i Conse Heuroond Bie 25 Bie CLARA HORN Boom, a ellie [> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE Ne—«EASTERN AND WESTERN DISTRICTS OF " Ee KENTUCKY

_3-