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

FAUSTINO HERNANDEZ, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 5:23-CV-32-CHB-MAS ) v. ) ) YS PRECISION STAMPING, INC., et al., ) MEMORANDUM ) Defendants. )

*** *** *** ***

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Matthew A. Stinnett recommending that Plaintiff Faustino Hernandez’s Complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute and that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be denied as moot. [See R. 17]. This action was removed to this Court on February 7, 2023, and the Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss on March 7, 2023. [See R.1; R. 9]. Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and so the Court referred the Defendants’ motion to Magistrate Judge Stinnett for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation on the motion. [See R. 14]. Magistrate Judge Stinnett then ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Defendants’ motion should not be granted and this case dismissed. [See R. 15]. Plaintiff did not file a response to that Show Cause Order, so Magistrate Judge Stinnett then ordered Plaintiff to show cause why his Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and warned that failure to comply with the order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute or, alternatively, that Defendants’ motion be granted. [See R. 16]. Plaintiff again did not respond. Thus, Magistrate Judge Stinnett recommended that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed and that Defendants’ motion be denied as moot. [See R. 17]. Magistrate Judge Stinnett’s Report and Recommendation advised the parties that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. [R. 17, p. 4]. 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. See

(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 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,

(6th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [R. 17] is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. 2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [R. 9] is DENIED as moot. 3. The Court will dismiss this action by separate order. This the 31st day of May, 2023.

4) os COURT JUDGE co” EATEN BNE WESTERN DISTRICTS OF

-2-