Suarez v. Helvie

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION

ROSALBA SUAREZ and § SILVIA VANESSA MORENO, § § Plaintiffs, § v. § § EP-22-CV-00344-DCG BRANDON HELVIE and § NEW PRIME INC., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants ask the Court to grant partial summary judgment in their favor on Plaintiffs’ gross negligence claims.1 The Court referred Defendants’ Partial Summary Judgment Motion to U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert F. Castañeda for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”).2 On December 8, 2023, Judge Castañeda issued an R&R recommending that the Court grant Defendants’ Motion in its entirety.3

1 Mot., ECF No. 36; see also Compl., ECF No. 1, at 4–5 (Plaintiffs’ gross negligence claim against Defendant Brandon Helvie); id. at 6–7 (Plaintiffs’ gross negligence claim against Defendant New Prime Inc.). 2 Referral Order, ECF No. 38; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); W.D. TEX. L.R. APP’X C, Rule 1(d)(1)(C). 3 R. & R., ECF No. 43. Plaintiffs had 14 days—i.e., until December 22, 2023—to object to the R&R.4 Because Plaintiffs didn’t object by that date, the Court therefore review the R&R for clear error only (rather than de novo).5 Having reviewed the R&R, the Court is satisfied that Judge Castañeda’s conclusions are neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The Court therefore:

(1) ACCEPTS Judge Castañeda’s “Report and Recommendation” (ECF No. 43) in its entirety;

(2) GRANTS “Defendants Brandon Helvie and New Prime Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Claims for Gross Negligence” (ECF No. 36); and

(3) ENTERS PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT in Defendants’ favor on Plaintiffs’ gross negligence claims.

Because this Order doesn’t dispose of Plaintiff’s other claims in this case,6 the case shall REMAIN OPEN and PROCEED TO TRIAL on Plaintiffs’ remaining claims as currently scheduled.7

4 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court.”); W.D. TEX. L.R. APP’X C, Rule 4(b) (“Any party may object to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings, recommendations or report . . . within 14 days after being served with a copy thereof.”); see also R. & R. at 8 (alerting Plaintiffs to the 14-day objection deadline and the potential consequences for missing it). 5 See, e.g., Magdalena Garcia v. Sessions, No. 1:18-CV-59, 2018 WL 6732889, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2018) (“Where no party objects to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court is not required to perform a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s determination, but need only review it to decide whether the Report and Recommendation is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”). 6 See Compl. at 4 (Plaintiffs’ ordinary negligence claim against Defendant Helvie); id. at 5–6 (Plaintiffs’ ordinary negligence and vicarious liability claims against Defendant New Prime). 7 See Scheduling Order, ECF No. 23, at 3–4 (scheduling a Pretrial Conference for March 7, 2024 and a Jury Trial for March 18, 2024); see also Pretrial, Trial, & Posttrial Order, ECF No. 37. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 3rd day of January 2024. [uf GUADERRAMA SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-