Marquis v. Sadeghian

Full title: BILLY MARQUIS, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. KHOSROW SADEGHIAN and AMY JO…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

Date published: Feb 26, 2021

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:19-CV-00626-RWS (E.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2021)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:19-CV-00626-RWS

02-26-2021

BILLY MARQUIS, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. KHOSROW SADEGHIAN and AMY JO SADEGHIAN, Defendants.

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Conditional Certification of Collective Action (Docket No. 27) and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Case with Prejudice (Docket No. 94). The Magistrate Judge entered proposed findings of fact and recommended that Plaintiffs' motion be denied (Docket No. 107) and similarly entered proposed findings of fact and recommended that Defendants' motion be denied (Docket No. 108) (collectively with Docket No. 107, "Reports and Recommendations"). Neither party has filed any objections to the Reports and Recommendations.

Because no objections to the Reports and Recommendations have been filed, neither party is entitled to de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions and recommendations, and except upon grounds of plain error, they are barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1)(C); Douglass v. United Services Automobile Assoc., 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the Plaintiffs' motion (Docket No. 27) and Defendants' motion (Docket No. 94) and the Magistrate Judge's Reports and Recommendations and agrees with the Reports and Recommendations. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 683 (1980) ("[T]he statute permits the district court to give to the magistrate's proposed findings of fact and recommendations 'such weight as [their] merit commands and the sound discretion of the judge warrants.' ") (quoting Mathews v. Weber, 23 U.S. 261, 275 (1976)). It is thus

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Conditional Certification of Collective Action (Docket No. 27) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Case with Prejudice (Docket No. 94) is DENIED.

SIGNED this 26th day of February, 2021.

/s/_________

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE