Figueroa v. Crown Equipment Corporation

Filing 28

Judge Mark L. Wolf: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered granting (25) Motion to Dismiss; adopting Report and Recommendations re (26) Report and Recommendations in case 1:15-cv-14113-MLW. (Attachments: # 1 Report and Recommendation) Associated Cases: 1:15-cv-14113-MLW, 1:15-cv-14115-MLW(Bono, Christine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

MICHAEL FIGUEROA,

Plaintiff,
V.

C.A. No. 15-14113-MLW

CROWN EQUIPMENT CORP.,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

October 23, 2017

WOLF, D.J.

On September 24, 2015, plaintiff Michael Figueroa filed this
case in the Massachusetts Superior Court alleging that defendant

manufactured and supplied a pallet jack used at Figueroa's place
of employment, where he worked as a laborer for Digipress, Inc.

Plaintiff alleged that he was injured when the pallet jack, which
was being operated by a co-worker, malfunctioned and struck him in
the lower right side. He claimed negligence and breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability. Defendant removed the case to
this court, where it was referred to Magistrate Judge Page Kelley.

The

Magistrate

Judge

issued

a

scheduling

order

which

required, among other things, that initial disclosures be made by
December

14,

2016.

On

December

19,

2016,

defendant

served

interrogatories and document requests. The plaintiff never made
initial disclosures and did not respond to the interrogatories of

document requests. On April 19, 2017, the Magistrate Judge granted

defendant's motion to compel and ordered plaintiff to do so within
ten days. Plaintiff, however, did not comply with that order.
Defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 37(b)(2)(A)(v). Plaintiff did not oppose the motion.

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending
that it be allowed.

The

time

period

for

objections

to

the

Report

and

Recommendation has expired. Plaintiff did not file any objections.
Therefore,

he

is

not

entitled

to

review

of

the

Report

and

Recommendation. Borden v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 836 F.

2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1987); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50
(1985). In any event, the court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's

reasoning and finds it to be thorough, thoughtful, and persuasive.
Therefore,

the

recommendation

to

allow

defendant's

motion

to

dismiss is being adopted.

In view of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1.

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Docket

No. 26) is ADOPTED and INCORPORATED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636.
2.

The Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 25) is ALLOWED. This

case is DISMISSED.

:CT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE v.