Davis v. Global Mediation Group, LLC
Davis v. Global Mediation Group, LLC
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION
BRIDGETTE DAVIS, § §
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:19-CV-00775-RWS Plaintiff, §
§ v. §
§ GLOBAL MEDIATION GROUP, LLC, § HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE § COMPANY, JOHN AND JANE DOES 1 - 5, § § Defendants. §
ORDER Plaintiff Bridgette Davis initiated this lawsuit on October 21, 2019. The Court referred this matter to the Honorable Christine A. Nowak, United States Magistrate Judge, for consideration pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636and applicable orders of the Court. The Magistrate Judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Hartford Casualty Insurance Company be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Davis has failed to sustain her burden to show that Hartford has been properly served with suit and because no good cause exists to extend the time period for service any further. Docket No. 34. The Court has considered the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge along with the record and pleadings. The Magistrate Judge issued her Report and Recommendation on July 26, 2020. Docket No. 34. No parties have filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, Davis is not entitled to de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions and recommendations, and except upon grounds of plain error, she is barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the pleadings in this case and the Report of the Magistrate Judge and agrees with the Report of the Magistrate Judge. See United States v. Raddatz,
447 U.S. 667, 683(1980) (‘[T]he statute permits the district court to give to the magistrate’s proposed findings of fact and recommendations “such weight as [their] merit commands and the sound discretion of the judge warrants....’””) (quoting Mathews vy. Weber,
23 U.S. 261, 275 (1976)). The Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Davis’s claims against Hartford are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 17th day of August, 2020.
foehert LO Gbrnects. G2. ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 2 of 2
Reference
- Status
- Unknown