Esquibel v. Landstar Ranger, Inc

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION ERLINDA ESQUIBEL § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-24-CV-1017-FB § LANDSTAR RANGER, INC.; § KBC LOGISTICS, LLC; GERALD CARTIER § JOHNSON; KAWARNARANG SINGH; § DHALIWAL BROTHERS TRUCKING, INC.; § DHALIWAL BROS LOGISTICS, INC.; § DHALIWAL BROS TRUCKING, INC.; § § Defendants. § ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The Court has considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed in the above-captioned cause on July 23, 2025 (docket #43), concerning Plaintiff’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Causes (docket #42). According to the CM/ECF system, the Report and Recommendation was electronically transmitted to all the parties on July 23, 2025. To date, the docket reflects no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been received.1 Because no party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made."). The Court has reviewed the Report and finds its 1 Any party who desires to object to a Magistrate's findings and recommendations must serve and file his, her or its written objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the findings and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 635(b)(1). If service upon a party is made by mailing a copy to the party's last known address, “service is complete upon mailing .” FED. R. CIV. P. 5(b)(2)(C). If service is made by electronic means, “service is complete upon transmission.” Id. at (E). When the mode of service is by electronic means, three days are no longer added to the time period to act after being served. See Heverling v. McNeil Consumer Pharmaceuticals, Co., Civil Action No. 1:17-CV-1433, 2018 WL reasoning to be neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). The Recommendation shall therefore be accepted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that Plaintiff “s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Causes of Action (docket #42) shall be GRANTED such that all claims against Defendant Dhaliwal Bros Logistics, Inc. and Dhaliwal Bros Trucking, Inc. shall be dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed in this cause on July 23, 2025 (docket #43), is ACCEPTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that Plaintiff “s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Causes of Action (docket #42)is GRANTED such that all claims against Defendant Dhaliwal Bros Logistics, Inc. and Dhaliwal Bros Trucking, Inc. are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 30th day of September, 2025.

□ citer C a FRED BIERY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-