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. ยง636.
2.
The Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 25) is ALLOWED. This
case is DISMISSED.
:CT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE v.
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?