Callier v. Momentum Solar LLC

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 14 Report and Recommendations, Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R, ECF No. 14, in its entirety, and ORDERS that Defendants Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7, is DENIE, Motions terminated: 7 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) and Brief In Support filed by Momenum Solar LLC. Signed by Judge Kathleen Cardone. (em)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO DIVISION
BRANDON L CALLIER,
Plaintiff,
v.
MOMENTUM SOLAR LLC,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CAUSE NO. EP-23-CV-377-KC

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On this day, the Court considered the above-captioned case. Defendant filed a Motion to
Dismiss (“Motion”), ECF No. 7, on November 8, 2023. On April 16, 2024, the Court referred
the Motion to United States Magistrate Judge Robert F. Castaneda pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) for proposed findings of fact and recommendations. Apr. 16, 2024, Text Order. On
April 25, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), ECF No. 14,
recommending that the Motion be denied. Id. at 5.
Parties have fourteen days from service of a Report and Recommendation of a United
States Magistrate Judge to file written objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).1 Over fourteen
days have elapsed since all parties were served with the R&R, and no objections have been filed.
When parties do not file written objections, courts apply a “clearly erroneous, abuse of
discretion and contrary to law” standard of review to a report and recommendation. United
States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989). After reviewing the R&R, the Court
agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and finds

1

Federal district courts conduct de novo review of those portions of a report and recommendation to
which a party has objected. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge . . . shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made . . . .”).

that they are neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. See id.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R, ECF No. 14, in its entirety, and ORDERS
that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 7, is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 10th day of May, 2024.

KATHLEEN CARDONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2