Grim v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO JOHN GRIM, Plaintiff, vs. No. CIV 19-10 MV/GBW FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (“PFRD”) (Doc. 53), recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 48).

Defendants’ motion was referred to the Magistrate Judge to conduct hearings and perform legal analysis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (b)(3) and Va. Beach Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Wood, 901 F.2d 849 (10th Cir. 1990). See Doc. 49. The Magistrate Judge filed his PFRD recommending denial on April 15, 2020. Doc. 53. Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s PFRD within the allotted time. Appellate review of these issues is therefore waived. See United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1059–60 (10th Cir. 1996). Failure to object to the PFRD also waives the right to de novo review by the district court. See id. at 1060; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–150 (1985). Nevertheless, the Court decided sua sponte to conduct a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s findings in this case. See One Parcel, 73 F.3d at 1061. The Court hereby concurs with all of the factual and legal conclusions recited therein.

Wherefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (Doc. 53) are ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (Doc. 48) is GRANTED.

. Uy A MARTHA ik ZQUE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE