RL BB Acquisition, LLC v. Bridgemill Commons Development Group, LLC et al.

Filing 116

ORDER denying 108 Motion for Leave to File Document; denying as moot 109 Motion to Dismiss; adopting Report and Recommendations re 115 Report and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 6/26/13. (CNM, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
at CHATTANOOGA
RL BB ACQUISITION, LLC,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
BRIDGEMILL COMMONS
DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-208
Judge Mattice

ORDER
On May 31, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge William Carter filed his Report
and Recommendation (Doc. 115) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 72(a). Magistrate Judge Carter recommended that Defendants’ “Motion
for Leave to File a First Amended Answer” (Doc. 108) be denied. (Id. at 4-6).
Defendants have filed no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation.1

Nevertheless,

the

Court

has

reviewed

the

Report

and

Recommendation, as well as the record, and it agrees with Magistrate Judge Carter’s
well-reasoned conclusions.

Magistrate Judge Carter specifically advised Defendants that they had 14 days in which to object to the
Report and Recommendation and that failure to do so would waive any right to appeal. (Doc. 22 at 17
n.1); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-51 (1985) (noting that “[i]t
does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal
conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings”). Even
taking into account the three additional days for service provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), the period in
which Defendant could timely file objections has now expired.

1

Accordingly:


The Court hereby ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Carter’s
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations pursuant to
§ 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(a);



Defendants’ Motion to Amend (Doc. 108) is DENIED;



In light of this Order, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 109) is
DENIED AS MOOT;



The bench trial on the issue of damages in this matter is hereby
RESET for Tuesday, July 16, 2013;



The parties SHALL NOT file any additional, substantive pretrial
motions or briefs, including, but not limited to, motions in limine.

SO ORDERED this 26th day of June, 2013.

/s/ Harry S. Mattice, Jr._______
HARRY S. MATTICE, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2