Marquis v. Sadeghian

E.D. Texas

Marquis v. Sadeghian

District Court, E.D. Texas·Decided January 21, 2022·No. 4:19-cv-00626·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION BILLY MARQUIS, et. al., § § Plaintiffs, § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:19-cv-626-RWS-KPJ § v. § § KHOSROW SADEGHIAN and § AMY JO SADEGHIAN, § § Defendants. ORDER The above-titled and numbered action was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On December 30, 2021, the Magistrate Judge entered proposed findings of fact and a recommendation (the “Report”) (Docket No. 142) that Plaintiffs Billy Marquis, Alexis Marquis and Anthony Marq uis’s (together, “Plaintiffs”) Amended Motion for Certification (the “Motion”) (Docket No. 115) be denied. Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report have been filed, neither party is entitled to de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions and recommendations. Except on grounds of plain error, the parties are barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assoc., 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the Motion (Docket No. 115) and the Magistrate Judge’s Report (Docket No. 142) and agrees with the Report. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 683 (1980) (“[T]he statute permits the district court to give the magistrate’s proposed findings of fact and recommendations ‘such weight as [their] merit commands and the sound discretion of the judge warrants.’ ”) (quoting Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 275 (1976)). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report (Docket No. 142) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. Plaintiffs’ Motion (Docket No. 115) is DENIED.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 21st day of January, 2022.

foeher □ LU plrweche. G2. ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION BILLY MARQUIS, et. al., § § Plaintiffs, § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:19-cv-626-RWS-KPJ § v. § § KHOSROW SADEGHIAN and § AMY JO SADEGHIAN, § § Defendants. ORDER The above-titled and numbered action was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On December 30, 2021, the Magistrate Judge entered proposed findings of fact and a recommendation (the “Report”) (Docket No. 142) that Plaintiffs Billy Marquis, Alexis Marquis and Anthony Marq uis’s (together, “Plaintiffs”) Amended Motion for Certification (the “Motion”) (Docket No. 115) be denied. Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report have been filed, neither party is entitled to de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions and recommendations. Except on grounds of plain error, the parties are barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assoc., 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the Motion (Docket No. 115) and the Magistrate Judge’s Report (Docket No. 142) and agrees with the Report. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 683 (1980) (“[T]he statute permits the district court to give the magistrate’s proposed findings of fact and recommendations ‘such weight as [their] merit commands and the sound discretion of the judge warrants.’ ”) (quoting Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 275 (1976)). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report (Docket No. 142) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. Plaintiffs’ Motion (Docket No. 115) is DENIED.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 21st day of January, 2022.

foeher □ LU plrweche. G2. ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

Marquis v. Sadeghian, (E.D. Tex. 2022).

Pincite

Marquis v. Sadeghian (Marquis v. Sadeghian) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related