Ralston v. Suiza Dairy Group, L.P. (N.D.Ind. 10-10-2006)

Full title: MARVIN RALSTON, Plaintiff, v. SUIZA DAIRY GROUP, L.P., Defendant

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division

Date published: Oct 10, 2006

Case No. 1:05-CV-341-TS (N.D. Ind. Oct. 10, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 1:05-CV-341-TS.

October 10, 2006

ORDER

THERESA SPRINGMANN, Magistrate Judge

This matter is before the Court on the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 16], filed on June 1, 2006, the Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Notice [DE 21], filed on July 3, 2006, and the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation [DE 28], dated September 18, 2006, making the recommendation that the Court deny the Motion for Judicial Notice and grant summary judgment for the Defendant.

A judge may refer a dispositive matter to a magistrate judge for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 72.1(d)(1). On August 28, 2006, this Court assigned Magistrate Judge Roger Cosbey to prepare a report and recommendation on the pending motions.

This Court's review of the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) which provides in part:

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. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with instructions.

The statute also requires objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendations to be made within ten days of service of a copy of the Report. Id. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Because the Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the Magistrate's Report, de novo review is not required. This Court finds that the Magistrate has correctly resolved the issues raised by the parties' motions. Therefore, the Court accepts the Magistrate's Report and Recommendations on the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and the Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Notice.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation [DE 28] is ACCEPTED, and the Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Notice [DE 21] is DENIED and the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 16] is GRANTED. The Clerk will enter judgment in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff.

SO ORDERED.