Opinion
Civil Action 1:22-cv-000071
11-29-2022
ESTUARDO DE LOS REYES, “Plaintiff,” v. STATE FARM LLOYDS, “Defendant.”
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Rolando Olvera, United States District Judge.
Before the Court are these pleadings: Defendant's “Motion to Limit Attorney's Fees” (“Motion”) (Dkt. No. 1-2 at 35-36), Plaintiffs “Response” to Defendant's Motion, with accompanying exhibits (Dkt. No. 19), Defendant's “Reply” with an exhibit in support of its Motion (Dkt. No 20), and Plaintiff s “Sur-Reply” (Dkt. No. 21). Along with these submissions, the Court received: (1) Plaintiffs “Opposed Renewed Motion to Compel Appraisal and Abate Judicial Proceedings” (“Renewed Motion”) with exhibits (Dkt. No. 18); (2) Defendant's opposed “Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Sur-Rely” (“Motion to Strike”) (Dkt. No. 22); (3) Plaintiffs “Response to Defendant's Motion to Strike.” (Dkt. No. 24); and the “Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation” (“R&R”) (Dkt. No. 25). The R&R recommends this Court: (1) deny Plaintiffs Renewed Motion (Dkt. No. 18); (2) grant Defendant's Motion (Dkt. No. 1-2 at 35-36); (3) deny Defendant's Motion to Strike (Dkt. No. 22); and (4) grant Defendant's alternative request for “21 days to file a Response addressing Plaintiff s request for a voluntary dismissal” (Dkt. No. 22 at 2).
No objections were filed by either party. When no objections are filed to a magistrate judge's ruling, the district court applies the “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law” standard of review. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989). Finding no clear error, abuse of discretion, or finding contrary to law, the R&R is ADOPTED.
Plaintiff s Renewed Motion (Dkt. No. 18) is DENIED. Defendant's Motion (Dkt. No. 1-2 at 35-36) is GRANTED. Defendant's Motion to Strike (Dkt. No. 22) is DENIED. Defendants alternative request “21 days to file a Response addressing Plaintiffs request for a voluntary dismissal” (Dkt. No. 22 at 2) is GRANTED.