Davis v. Colonial Freight Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 208

ORDER granting 200 Motion for Reconsideration; and accepting and adopting 204 Report and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge Travis R McDonough on 12/9/2019. (BJL) Modified on 12/9/2019 (BJL).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
THEODUS DAVIS, on behalf of himself
and those similarly situated,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
COLONIAL FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC., et )
al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 3:16-cv-674
Judge Travis R. McDonough
Magistrate Judge H. Bruce Guyton

ORDER

On November 19, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge H. Bruce Guyton filed his report
and recommendation (Doc. 204) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72(a). After holding a telephonic hearing and reviewing this case’s procedural history
and the parties’ remaining discovery disputes, Magistrate Judge Guyton concluded that “the
deadlines in the [parties’] proposed scheduling order will keep the parties on track to try this case
without further delay.” (Doc. 204, at 2.) Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Guyton recommended
that the Court grant Defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the Court’s denial of their motion
to amend the scheduling order (Doc. 200). (Id.) Magistrate Judge Guyton further recommended
that the Court adopt the parties’ proposed scheduling order (Doc. 200-1). (Id. at 3.)
Neither party filed timely objections to Magistrate Judge Guyton’s report and
recommendation.1 Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the report and recommendation, as well

1

Magistrate Judge Guyton specifically advised the parties that they had 14 days in which to
object to the report and recommendation and that failure to do so would waive their right to

as the record, and it agrees with Magistrate Judge Guyton’s well-reasoned conclusions. The
Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the report and recommendation (Doc. 204). The Court
GRANTS Defendants’ motion for reconsideration (Doc. 200) and ADOPTS the parties’
proposed scheduling order (Doc. 200-1).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Travis R. McDonough
TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

appeal. (Doc. 204, at 2); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 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 the parties could timely file any objections
has now expired.

2