Chan v. Re/Max

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI OXFORD DIVISION

YU HIN CHAN PLAINTIFF

V. NO. 3:25-CV-228-DMB-JMV

RE/MAX, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

On September 12, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden issued a report (“R&R”) recommending that this action be dismissed. Doc. #5. The R&R warned that “[f]ailure to timely file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report will bar an aggrieved party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court.” Id. at PageID 15. No objection to the R&R was filed. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report … to which objection is made.” “[P]lain error review applies where, as here, a party did not object to a magistrate judge’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, or recommendation to the district court despite being served with notice of the consequences of failing to object.” Ortiz v. City of San Antonio Fire Dep’t, 806 F.3d 822, 825 (5th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). “[W]here there is no objection, the Court need only determine whether the report and recommendation is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” United States v. Alaniz, 278 F. Supp. 3d 944, 948 (S.D. Tex. 2017) (citing United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989)). Because the Court reviewed the R&R for plain error and concludes the R&R is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, the R&R [5] is ADOPTED as the order of the Court. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. SO ORDERED, this 1st day of October, 2025. /s/Debra M. Brown UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE