Menendez et al v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al

Filing 215

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION in its entirety 213 , and incorporates all of Magistrate Judge Cosbey's findings and recommendations into this order. Accordingly, Indiana law is held to apply to this action in its entirety. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 5/24/11. (jcp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
HUMBERTO GUSTAVO MENENDEZ,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WAL-MART STORES EAST LP, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:10-CV-53 JD

ORDER
On January 24, 2011, a telephonic status conference was held before Magistrate Judge
Roger B. Cosbey, wherein choice of law issues were discussed. As a result, Magistrate Judge
Cosbey set briefing deadlines to determine the applicable law in this case. See DE 203.
Thereafter, on February 22, 2011, the Defendants filed a motion for determination of applicable
law. See DE 207. On March 11, 2011, the Plaintiffs filed an opening brief regarding the same
issue. See DE 208. In addition, also on March 11, 2011, both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
filed response briefs. See DE 209, DE 211.
On March 21, 2011, the undersigned referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Cosbey 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(c). See DE 212. On March
30, 2011, Magistrate Judge Cosbey issued his Report and Recommendation. See DE 213. In his
Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Cosbey recommends that Indiana law be found
applicable to the resolution of the underlying issues in this case. See DE 213. As of this date, no
party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2)
1

(affording the parties fourteen days to file objections).
The Court’s review of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is governed by
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), 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 or recommendations to which objection is
made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also
receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), however, the Court must only make a de novo
determination of those portions of the Magistrates Judge’s Report and Recommendation
to which specific written objection have been made. Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170
F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (setting forth procedures for
objecting to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and the District Court’s
standard of review for resolving objections). If no objection or only a partial objection is
made, the Court reviews those unobjected portions for clear error. Id. In addition, failure
to file objections with the district court also “waives the right to appeal all issues
addressed in the recommendation, both factual and legal.”. Id. Under the clear error
standard, the Court can only overturn a Magistrate Judge’s ruling if the Court is left with
“the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Weeks v. Samsung
Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997).
Both 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) permit the parties to file objections
to a Report and Recommendation within fourteen days of being served with a copy of the same.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). More than 14 days have passed since the
2

entry of Magistrate Judge Cosbey’s Report and Recommendation, and no party has filed an
objection. Consequently, because the time period for objections as passed, the Court considers
there to be no objection to Magistrate Judge Cosbey’s Report and Recommendation.
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finding no clear error therein, the
Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, [DE 213], and incorporates all
of Magistrate Judge Cosbey’s findings and recommendations into this order. Accordingly,
Indiana law is held to apply to this action in its entirety.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED:

May 24, 2011
/s/ JON E. DEGUILIO
Judge
United States District Court

3