Opinion
Case No. 5:10-cv-02958-RDP
11-20-2012
KELVIN JONES, Plaintiff, v. O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE, INC., Defendant.
ORDER
On October 22, 2012, the magistrate judge filed his report and recommendation in the above-referenced case (Doc. # 43), recommending that this court grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 29). Although objections to the report and recommendation were due to be filed by November 6, 2012, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), no objections were filed.
Having now carefully reviewed and considered de novo all of the materials in the court file, including the report and recommendation, the court is of the opinion that the report is due to be, and hereby is, ADOPTED, and the recommendation is ACCEPTED.
The court notes that it was not required to conduct an independent review of the report and recommendation in this case because no party has filed objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)("It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings."). Nonetheless, the court has reviewed the magistrate's report and agrees with his conclusions.
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 29) is GRANTED. Defendant's Motion to Strike (Doc. # 37) is MOOT.
It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that final judgment be entered in favor of O'Reilly Automotive, Inc. and against Plaintiff Kelvin Jones. This action is DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
Costs are taxed against Plaintiff.
___________
R. DAVID PROCTOR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE