KNIGHT SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. Rapid Freight Hauler LLC

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Texas
DecidedMay 30, 2024
Docket7:23-cv-00211
StatusUnknown

This text of KNIGHT SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. Rapid Freight Hauler LLC (KNIGHT SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. Rapid Freight Hauler LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
KNIGHT SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. Rapid Freight Hauler LLC, (W.D. Tex. 2024).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION

KNIGHT SPECIALTY § INSURANCE COMPANY, § , § MO:23-CV-00211-DC § v. § § RAPID FREIGHT HAULER LLC, § ALEJANDRO LUGOJR., § .

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION BEFORE THE COURT is United States Magistrate Judge Ronald C. Griffin’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed in the above-captioned cause on April 30, 2024, in connection with Plaintiff Knight Specialty Insurance Company’s Motion for Default Judgment against Defendants Rapid Freight Hauler LLC and Alejando Lugo Jr. (Doc. 19). This matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge.1 None of the parties filed objections, and the deadline to do so has expired. Any party who desires to object to a Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations must serve and file written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy of the findings and recommendations.2 Failure to file written objections to the R&R within 14 days after being served with a copy shall bar that party from de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings and recommendations.3

1 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 2 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 3 Id. What’s more, except upon grounds of plain error, it shall also bar the party from appellate review of proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court to which no objections were filed.* Having reviewed the R&R, the Court finds it neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Thus, the Court ADOPTS the R&R and GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment be GRANTED. (Doc. 15). The Court will enter final judgment by separate order. It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 30th day of May, 2024.

:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4 Id, Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53 (1985); United States v. Wilson, 864 P.2d 1219 6th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Thomas v. Arn
474 U.S. 140 (Supreme Court, 1986)
State v. Rinehart
864 P.2d 1219 (Montana Supreme Court, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
KNIGHT SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY v. Rapid Freight Hauler LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knight-specialty-insurance-company-v-rapid-freight-hauler-llc-txwd-2024.