Stanford v. TBC Retail Group Inc

District Court, N.D. Texas

Stanford v. TBC Retail Group Inc

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION

JASON STANFORD, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. 4:24-cv-010-O-BP § TBC RETAIL GROUP, Inc., dba § NATIONAL TIRE AND BATTERY, § et al., § § Defendants. § FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE On July 9, 2024, the parties filed an Agreed Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice (ECF No. 59), signed by Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants, requesting that the Court dismiss all claims in this lawsuit with prejudice, each party to bear his own its own costs. This case was automatically referred to the undersigned pursuant to Special Order 3 on January 4, 2024. ECF No. 14. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), the undersigned finds that the Motion should be GRANTED. Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that United States District Judge Reed O’Connor GRANT the Motion (ECF No. 59) and DISMISS Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants with prejudice. A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,

79 F.3d 1415, 1417

(Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc), modified by statute on other grounds,

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections to 14 days). SIGNED on July 10, 2024.

Har. Ray, R 0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Reference

Status
Unknown