Rich Poisel's Roofing v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America ( 2020 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA RICH POISEL’S ROOFING and RICH POISEL, 8:19CV447 Plaintiffs, v. ORDER TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant. This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the magistrate judge1 (Filing No. 7) recommending the Court dismiss this case for failure of service, want of prosecution, and failure to show subject-matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and 41(b). Plaintiffs Rich Poisel’s Roofing and Rich Poisel (collectively, “plaintiffs”) have not objected or otherwise responded to the Findings and Recommendation, and the time to object has expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (allowing fourteen days to object). The Court is required under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) to conduct de novo review of “specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” The plaintiffs’ failure to timely object “eliminates not only the need for de novo review, but any review by the district court.” Leonard v. Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 553 F.3d 609, 619- 20 (8th Cir. 2009); see also NECivR 72.2 (“Failure to object to a finding of fact in a magistrate judge’s recommendation may be construed as a waiver of the right to object to 1The Honorable Michael D. Nelson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska. the district judge’s order adopting the recommendation of the finding of fact.’) Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 7) are accepted in their entirety. Any objections are deemed waived. 2. This case is dismissed without prejudice for failure of service, want of prosecution, and failure to show subject-matter jurisdiction. 3. A separate judgment will issue. Dated this 19th day of February 2020. BY THE COURT: Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. United States District Judge