Summary
denying motion to dismiss where there was evidence that federal employees failed to take reasonable measures to address known negligence by a contractor
Summary of this case from Price v. United StatesOpinion
CASE NO. 1:13 CV 01559
06-09-2015
JUAN CARLOS ANDRADE RODRIGUEZ, et al., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter comes before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Kenneth S. McHargh's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), which recommends that the defendant's motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the magistrate judge recommended denying the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and he recommended granting the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim with respect to the second, third, fourth, and fifth claims of the complaint.
No timely objections have been filed to the magistrate judge's R&R. This Court, having reviewed the R&R and found it to be without error, adopts it as its own. Therefore, the motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part as described in the R&R.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court makes a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R to which a timely objection is made. "When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Lesley Wells
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: 9 June 2015