Guzzetta v. Stolmeier

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION JERRY A. GUZZETTA, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-24-CV-393-FB § PATRICK J. STOLMEIER, Individually and § STOLMEIER LAW, § § 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 November 12, 2024 (docket #33), concerning Plaintiff Jerry Guzzetta’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice (docket #25). According to the CM/ECF system, the Report and Recommendation was electronically transmitted to all the parties on November 12, 2024. 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 reasoning to be neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 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 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 Without Prejudice (docket #25) shall be GRANTED; Defendants’ request for attorney’s fees shall be DENIED; and all remaining motions shall be DISMISSED AS MOOT. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed in this cause on November 12, 2024 (docket #33), is ACCEPTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that Plaintiff ‘s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice (docket #25) is GRANTED such that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ request for attorney’s fees is DENIED, and all remaining motions are DISMISSED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is CLOSED. It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 27th day of November, 2024.

“ jeer a FRED BIERY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-