Opinion
3:18-CV-1914
08-11-2023
FRANK KRAMMES TIMBER HARVESTING, INC., Plaintiff v. LETOURNEAU ENTERPRISES, LLC, Defendants.
Carlson Magistrate Judge
ORDER
ROBERT D. MARIANI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
AND NOW, THIS 11th DAY OF AUGUST, 2023, upon review of Magistrate Judge Martin Carlson's Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 40), Plaintiffs objections thereto (Doc. 41), and all relevant briefs, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The R&R (Doc. 40) is ADOPTED for the reasons set forth therein.
2. Plaintiffs Objections (Doc. 41) are OVERRULED.
The Court agrees with Judge Carlson's legal and factual analysis in its entirety. The R&R is narrowly focused, and properly so, on the questions framed by the Court in its previous Memorandum Opinions (Docs. 22, 28) regarding Defendant's first and second motions to dismiss (Docs. 2, 25). Plaintiffs objections generally either reiterate arguments previously raised and considered by Judge Carlson, or attempt to introduce entirely new assertions or arguments not suitable for consideration at this stage. See Piligian v. Icahn Sch. of Med. at Mount Sinai, 490 F.Supp.3d 707,716 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). Further, several of Plaintiffs objections are mere disagreements with Judge Carlson's analysis and are unsupported by persuasive authority or argument. Notably, this Court expressly indicated in a previous Memorandum Opinion that discovery was necessary to “provide clarity on the alleged benefits Defendants received," and strongly implied the same with respect to the timing of Plaintiffs yard development. (Doc. 28 at 13,16.) It is evident that Plaintiff largely, if not completely, declined the opportunity to pursue this discovery. Instead, Plaintiff urges the Court to find a genuine dispute of material fact arising out of “inferences” in its favor, while, at the same time, plainly unable to point to evidence that supports its claims. (See, e.g., Doc. 41 at 5.) In summary, having reviewed the portions of the R&R to which Plaintiff objected, the Court independently reaches the same conclusions as Judge Carlson.
3. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 33) is GRANTED. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff.