WSOU Investments LLC v. ZTE Corporation et al

Filing 282

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 262 Motion to Dismiss, filed by WSOU Investments LLC. The Court RECOMMENDS that the Case be DISMISSED with PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Derek T. Gilliland. (ad3)

Case 6:20-cv-00490-ADA-DTG Document 282 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WACO DIVISION
WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Plaintiff,
v.
ZTE CORPORATION,
Defendant.

CIVIL NO. W-20-CV-00490-ADA

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
TO:

THE HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), and Rules 1(f) and 4(b) of Appendix C of the Local Rules
of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges. Before the Court is the parties’ Agreed
Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) (ECF No. 262). For the following reasons
given via the Oral Ruling at the January 17, 2023 hearing, the Court RECOMMENDS that the
Case be DISMISSED with PREJUDICE.
Given the amount of time the Court dedicated to that case, a dismissal with prejudice is
appropriate. Any requests for fees or costs can be addressed at a later date through a later motion, if the Defendants decide to file one.
V.

OBJECTIONS

Case 6:20-cv-00490-ADA-DTG Document 282 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2

The parties may wish to file objections to this Report and Recommendation. Parties filing
objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which they object.
The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v.
U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations
contained in this Report within fourteen (14) days after the party is served with a copy of the Report shall bar that party from de novo review by the District Court of the proposed findings and
recommendations in the Report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
150–53 (1985); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Except upon grounds of plain error, failing to object shall further bar the party from appellate
review of unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District
Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150–53; Douglass, 79 F.3d at 1415.
Dated: January 17, 2023.
____________________________________
DEREK T. GILLILAND
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2