Baksic v. Ethicon Inc. ( 2023 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION DANIELLE BAKSIC, and BRIAN ) BAKSIC, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) V. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-20-CA-920-FB ) ETHICON INC., and JOHNSON & ) JOHNSON, ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (docket no. 120) concerning Defendants’ Motion for Award of Costs (docket no. 113), along with Plaintiffs’ written objections (docket no. 121) thereto and Defendants’ response (docket no. 122) to Plaintiffs’ objections. Where no party has objected to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made."). In such cases, the Court need only review the Report and Recommendation and determine whether it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). On the other hand, any Report and Recommendation to which objection is made requires de novo review by the Court. Such a review means that the Court will examine the entire record, and will make an independent assessment of the law. The Court need not, however, conduct a de novo review when the objections are frivolous, conclusive, or general in nature. Battle v. United States Parole The Court has thoroughly analyzed the parties’ submissions in light of the entire record. As required by Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), the Court has conducted an independent review of the entire record in this cause and has conducted a de novo review with respect to those matters raised by the objections. After due consideration, the Court concludes that the objections lack merit. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (docket no. 120) is ACCEPTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that Defendants’ Motion for Award of Costs (docket no. 113) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to place Defendants’ Bill of Costs (docket no. 117-1) on the docket. Plaintiffs may file a response in opposition to the Bill of Costs in accordance with Local Rule 54(e). It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 18th day of September, 2023. Feet CF D BIERY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ~9-