WSOU Investments LLC v. ZTE Corporation

District Court, W.D. Texas

WSOU Investments LLC v. ZTE Corporation

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL NO. W-20-CV-00490-ADA § ZTE CORPORATION, § § Defendant. § §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TO: THE HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Court pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), and Rules 1(f) and 4(b) of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Local Rules for the As- signment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges. Before the Court is the parties’ Agreed Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) (ECF No. 262). For the following reasons given via the Oral Ruling at the January 17, 2023 hearing, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Case be DISMISSED with PREJUDICE. Given the amount of time the Court dedicated to that case, a dismissal with prejudice is appropriate. Any requests for fees or costs can be addressed at a later date through a later mo- tion, if the Defendants decide to file one. V. OBJECTIONS The parties may wish to file objections to this Report and Recommendation. Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which they object. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n,

834 F.2d 419, 421

(5th Cir. 1987). A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained in this Report within fourteen (14) days after the party is served with a copy of the Re- port shall bar that party from de novo review by the District Court of the proposed findings and recommendations in the Report. See

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C); Thomas v Arn,

474 U.S. 140, 150-53

(1985); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,

79 F.3d 1415

(Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc). Except upon grounds of plain error, failing to object shall further bar the party from appellate review of unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court. See

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C); Thomas,

474 U.S. at 150-53

; Douglass,

79 F.3d at 1415

.

Dated: January 17, 2023. Ya UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Reference

Status
Unknown