National Legal and Policy Center et al v. Berkshire Hathaway Inc. et al

Filing 63

ORDER - The Court accepts Judge DeLuca's Findings and Recommendation, Filing 57 , in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3); and The claims against defendants Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and Warren Buffett are dismissed in their entirety for the reasons stated in Filing 36 , the Court's October 29, 2024, Order. Ordered by Judge Brian C. Buescher. (MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
NATIONAL LEGAL AND POLICY CENTER,
PETER T. FLAHERTY, and JAMES “JAMIE”
R. TOVAR,
NO. 8:24-CV-162
Plaintiffs,
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

vs.
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC., WARREN
BUFFETT, CHRIS THOMPSON, and DAN
CLARK,
Defendants.

This case is before the Court on the February 18, 2025, Findings and Recommendation by
United States Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. DeLuca. Filing 57. The Findings and
Recommendation followed the plaintiffs’ filing of an Amended Complaint, Filing 56, on February
14, 2025. Filing 57 at 1. Because the Amended Complaint realleges claims against defendants
Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and Warren Buffett that the Court already dismissed in a prior Order, Filing
36, Judge DeLuca recommended that “the claims against Defendants Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and
Warren Buffett be dismissed in their entirety for the reasons stated in the Court’s October 29, 2024,
Order.” Filing 57 at 1. Judge DeLuca then notified the parties of the consequences of failing to file
a timely objection to the Findings and Recommendation. Filing 57 at 2. No party has filed objections
to the Findings and Recommendation within the time allowed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2).
1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), a district
court must review de novo the parts of a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation on a
dispositive or non-dispositive matter to which timely objections have been made. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); accord Gonzalez-Perez v. Harper, 241 F.3d 633, 636 (8th Cir.
2001) (“When a party timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district
court is required to make a de novo review of the record related to the objections. . . .”). On the other
hand, neither the applicable statute, rule, nor case law requires the Court to conduct a de novo review
of a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation when no objections are filed. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1) (“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.”); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition
that has been properly objected to.”); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985) (explaining that
nothing in § 636(b)(1) requires a district judge to apply some lesser standard of review than de novo
when no objections are filed). Nevertheless, the Court deems it prudent to review findings and
recommendations to which no objections are filed at least for clear error. See, e.g., Grinder v.
Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting that when no objections are filed “[the district
court judge] would only have to review the findings of the magistrate judge for clear error”). The
reviewing district court judge is free to “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
and recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3). If desired, a reviewing district court judge may “receive further evidence or recommit the
matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The Court has reviewed the record and finds no error—clear or otherwise—in Judge
DeLuca’s Findings and Recommendation. See Grinder, 73 F.3d at 795. Accordingly,
2

IT IS ORDERED that
1. The Court accepts Judge DeLuca’s Findings and Recommendation, Filing 57, in its
entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3); and
2. The claims against defendants Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and Warren Buffett are dismissed
in their entirety for the reasons stated in Filing 36, the Court’s October 29, 2024, Order.

Dated this 11th day of March, 2025.
BY THE COURT:

_________________________
Brian C. Buescher
United States District Judge

3