Opinion
6:21-cv-01645-MK
07-22-2024
RICK CHESSELET, Plaintiff, v. JPW INDUSTRIES, INC.; SOUTHERN CARLSON, INC., Defendants.
ORDER
AIKEN, DISTRICT JUDGE.
This case comes before the Court on a Findings and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Mustafa Kasubhai. ECF No. 58. Judge Kasubhai recommends that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 51, be GRANTED as to the claim for negligence against Defendant Southern Carlson and DENIED as to the failure to warn claim against Defendants.
Under the Federal Magistrates Act, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, “the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).
For those portions of a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations to which neither party has objected, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate's report to which no objections are filed.”). Although no review is required in the absence of objections, the Magistrates Act “does not preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.” Id. at 154. The Advisory Committee Notes to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court should review the recommendation for “clear error on the face of the record.”
In this case, Defendants have filed Objections, ECF No. 60, and Plaintiff has filed a Response, ECF No. 61. Defendants object to Judge Kasubhai's recommendation concerning the failure to warn claim. The Court has reviewed the F&R, the Objections, the Response, and the records and finds no error. The F&R, ECF No. 58, is therefore ADOPTED and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 51, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth in the F&R.
It is so ORDERED.