Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-98-CA-491-OG
August 17, 1999
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the Memorandum and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge filed in the above-styled and numbered cause on August 19, 1999, the Plaintiffs' objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation filed on August 26, 1999, and the Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' objections filed on September 10, 1999.
Where no party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of it. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made."). In such cases, the Court need only review the Memorandum and Recommendation and determine whether it is either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989).
On the other hand, if any party objects to the Memorandum and Recommendation, the Court must review it de novo. See Kreimerman v. Casa Veerkamp, S.A. de C.V., 22 F.3d 634, 646 (5th Cir. 1994); Longmire v. Guste, 921 F.2d 620, 623 (5th Cir. 1991). Such a review means that the Court will examine the entire record, and will make an independent assessment of the law. The Court need not, however, conduct a de novo review when the objections are frivolous, conclusive, or general in nature. Battle v. United States Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
In this case, the Court has considered the Memorandum and Recommendation, along with Plaintiffs' objections and Defendant's response, de novo in light of the entire record. The Court concurs entirely with the factual and legal findings in the Memorandum and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Memorandum and Recommendation should be accepted.
IT IS ORDERED THAT the Memorandum and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge filed in this cause on August 19, 1999, be and is ACCEPTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that Defendant's motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment is GRANTED such that all of Plaintiffs' claims are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P.; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is DENIED, and all other pending motions are denied as moot.