Gavi Medical LLC v. Lalo, LLC ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION GAVI MEDICAL LLC Plaintiff v. Civil Action No. 3:21-cv-110-RGJ-RSE LALO LLC, ET AL Defendants * * * * * ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter is before the Court on the motion for sanctions and contempt filed by the Plaintiff Gavi Medical LLC (“Gavi Medical”). [DE 50, DE 53]. This motion was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Regina S. Edwards for report and recommendation. [DE 51]. Judge Edwards ordered Gavi Medical to file a copy of the parties’ settlement agreement under seal as an attachment to its motion for sanctions and contempt. [DE 52]. Gavi Medical complied with Magistrate Judge Edwards’ order and re-filed its motion for sanctions and contempt along with an unredacted sealed copy of the parties’ settlement agreement. [DE 53]. Defendants Lalo, LLC, et al. did not file a response to Gavi Medical’s motion. Judge Edwards entered her Report and Recommendation [DE 55] on September 6, 2022, recommending that the motion be granted in part. The time for objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation expired on September 20, 2022. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Neither Gavi Medical nor Lalo, LLC, et al. filed objections and the time for doing so has passed. This matter is now ripe for adjudication. A district court may refer a motion to a magistrate judge for the preparation of a report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). “A magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required proceedings . . . [and] enter a recommended disposition, including, if appropriate, proposed findings of fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). This Court must “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court need not review under a de novo or any other standard those aspects of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made and may adopt the findings and rulings of the magistrate judge to which no specific objection is filed Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150, 155 (1985). Here, because no party has objected to the Report and Recommendation, the Court may accept it without review. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150, 155. Nevertheless, the Court has conducted its own review of the record and finds no error in the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions. Accordingly, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT ORDERED as follows: (1) The Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge Regina S. Edwards, [DE 55], is ACCEPTED in whole and INCORPORATED by reference. (2) The Motion for Sanctions, Contempt, and Judgment [DE 50, DE 53] is GRANTED IN PART as set forth in the Report and Recommendation [DE 55]. (3) A separate judgment shall issue this date. United States District Court September 21, 2022 cc: Counsel of Record