Opinion
4:23-cv-01100-O-BP
11-28-2023
MORRIS WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. DATA SEARCH COLLECTIONS, INC.,Defendant.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
HAL R. RAY, JR., UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On November 27, 2023, Plaintiff Morris Williams filed a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice (ECF No. 7), signed only by Plaintiff, stating that the parties stipulate and agree to dismiss the action with prejudice. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires a stipulation of dismissal to be “signed by all parties who have appeared.” Morris is the only party who has appeared in the case. This case was automatically referred to the undersigned pursuant to Special Order 3 on October 27, 2023. ECF No. 3.
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that United States District Judge Reed O'Connor GRANT the stipulation (ECF No. 7) and DISMISS Plaintiff Morris William's claims against Defendant Data Search Collections, Inc. with prejudice with each party to bear that party's own costs and attorney's fees.
A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file specific written objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). To be specific, an objection must identify the particular finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. UnitedServs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).