Benson v. Faurecia Automotive
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 10/8/2015. (KEK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
Case No.: 2:14-cv-00980-JEO
On July 10, 2015, Chief Magistrate Judge John Ott entered a report concerning
the defendant Faurecia Automotive’s motion to dismiss the complaint due to plaintiff
Dominque Benson’s failure to comply with the Court’s April 13, 2015 discovery
order and her failure to attend her deposition. (Doc. 28). In his report, Judge Ott
recommended that the Court dismiss this case with prejudice and award Faurecia
Automotive costs, including reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees. (Doc. 28, pp. 67).
Judge Ott explained to the parties that they had fourteen days in which to file
objections to the recommendation.
(Doc. 28, pp. 7-8).
Neither party has filed
objections. On August 10, 2015, the Clerk of Court randomly drew the undersigned
to review Judge Ott’s July 10, 2015 report.
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
a party objects to a report and recommendation, the district court must “make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” Id. The Court reviews for plain error
the portions of the report or proposed findings to which no objection is made. Garvey
v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also United States v. Slay, 714
F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1050 (1984)
(“The failure to object to the magistrate’s findings of fact prohibits an attack on appeal
of the factual findings adopted by the district court except on grounds of plain error or
manifest injustice.”) (internal citation omitted); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx.
781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
The Court has reviewed the record and Judge Ott’s report and recommendation.
(Doc. 28). Applying the plain error standard, the Court ADOPTS the July 10, 2015
report and ACCEPTS Judge Ott’s recommendation that the Court dismiss this action
with prejudice. Because this case is assigned to Judge Ott, he will resolve the pending
petition for costs. (Docs. 29, 30). The Court will enter a separate order of dismissal
consistent with this memorandum opinion.
DONE and ORDERED this October 8, 2015.
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?