Fehr v. Unicorn Freight LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION DEBRA FEHR, INDIVIDUALLY AND § AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE § ESTATES OF MARVIN WIRTJES AND § SHIRLEY WIRTJES; and § THERESA RILEY, INDIVIDUALLY, § § Plaintiffs, § § and § § RASHEED WALL; and § AKEEM HOPKINS, § § Intervenors, § EP-23-CV-00271-DCG § and § § JOAQUIN MURRIETA, § § Intervenor, § § v. § § UNICORN FREIGHT, LLC; § DIEBEL TRANSPORTATION, LLC; § THE ESTATE OF DONALD DIEBEL, § JR.; and § J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., § § Defendants. § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IN FULL AND REMANDING THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED CASE On April 22, 2025, the Court referred Plaintiffs’ and Intervenor Plaintiffs’ “Motions to Remand” (ECF Nos. 5, 6, and 8) (collectively, the “Motions”) to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anne T.

Berton for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). See Referral Order, ECF No. 21. On July 21, 2025, Judge Berton issued her Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Motions be granted. R. & R., ECF No. 24.

Parties have fourteen days from service of a Report and Recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge to file written objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Over fourteen days have elapsed since all parties were served with the R. & R., and no objections have been filed.1 When parties do not file written objections, courts apply a “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law” standard of review to a report and recommendation. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (“[T]he ‘clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law’ standard of review . . . is appropriate . . . where there has been no objection to the magistrate's ruling.”); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276–77 (5th Cir. 1988) (“[A] party is not entitled to de novo review of a magistrate's finding and recommendations if objections are not raised in writing by the aggrieved party ... after being served with a copy of the magistrate's report.”).2 Having carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the Court concludes that it is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The Court therefore ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ and Intervenor Plaintiffs’ “Motions to Remand” (ECF Nos. 5, 6, and 8).

The parties’ joint request for a status conference (ECF No. 16) is thus MOOT.

1 All parties were electronically served with a copy of the R&R on July 21, 2025. See R. & R., ECF No. 24. The deadline to file objections thus fell on August 4, 2025.

2 In contrast, district judges conduct a de novo review of those portions of a report and recommendation to which a party has objected. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge ... shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report ... to which objection is made....”).

The Clerk of Court SHALL REMAND this case back to County Court at Law No. 3 of El Paso County, Texas.

The Clerk of Court SHALL CLOSE this federal case.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this Sth day of August 2025.

[us | GUADERRAMA SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE