Rawls et al v. Union Pacific Railroad et al

Filing 142

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 104 ; denying 56 Motion to Dismiss filed by Alfred Brown, Union Pacific Railroad, Steve Holford. Signed by Honorable Harry F. Barnes on August 5, 2011. (cnn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION

CODY RAWLS, et al.

V.

PLAINTIFFS

CASE NO. 09-CV-1037

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed February 22, 2011, by the
Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
(ECF No. 104). Judge Bryant recommends that Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Certain Allegations
of Plaintiffs’ Complaint (ECF No. 56) be denied. Defendants have responded with timely
objections. (ECF No. 109). After reviewing the record de novo, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge
Bryant’s Report and Recommendation as its own.
Defendants assert that the magistrate judge did not rule on the merits of their motion and ask
the Court to refer the motion back to the magistrate judge for such a ruling. The magistrate judge
stated in his report and recommendation that Defendants’ motion could be denied as untimely.
However, he further stated that “even assuming the Court were to consider the motion as timely
filed, Defendants Motion to Dismiss would still fail.” (Doc. 104). The magistrate judge then
discussed the merits of Defendants’ motion and found that Plaintiffs had set forth facts alleging a
duty owed by Defendants to Plaintiffs and that a breach of duty occurred that proximately caused
Plaintiffs’ damages. The Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s analysis regarding the merits of
Defendants’ motion and his recommendation regarding the disposition of the motion.

For reasons stated herein and above, as well as those contained in the Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 104), the Court overrules Defendants’ objections and finds that
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Certain Allegations of Plaintiffs’ Complaint (ECF No. 56) should
be and hereby is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 5th day of August, 2011.
/s/ Harry F. Barnes
Hon. Harry F. Barnes
United States District Judge

-2-