Mobile Motherboard Inc. v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION

MOBILE MOTHERBOARD INC., § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CAUSE NO. WA-23-CV-325-KC § ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC., § § Defendant. §

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On this day, the Court considered the above-captioned case. On December 12, 2023, the Court referred Defendant ASUSTeK Computer Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”), ECF No. 11, to United States Magistrate Judge Anne T. Berton pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) for proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Dec. 12, 2023, Text Order. On February 5, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), ECF No. 17, recommending that the Motion be denied. R&R 22. Parties have fourteen days from service of a Report and Recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge to file written objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).1 Over fourteen days have elapsed since all parties were served with the R&R, and no objections have been filed. When parties do not file written objections, courts apply a “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law” standard of review to a report and recommendation. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989). After reviewing the R&R, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and finds

1 Federal district courts conduct de novo review of those portions of a report and recommendation to which a party has objected. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge . . . shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made . . . .”). that they are neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. See id. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R, ECF No. 17, in its entirety, and ORDERS that ASUSTeK Computer Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 11, is DENIED. R&R 22. SO ORDERED. SIGNED this 21st day of February, 2024.