Opinion
CV422-281
05-23-2023
ORDER
WILLIAM T. MOORE, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's April 10, 2023, Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12), to which no objections have been filed. After a careful review of the record, the report and recommendation (Doc. 12) is ADOPTED as the Court's opinion in this case. Plaintiff Eddie Holmes's claims against Defendants R/S Logistics and David Schmid are DISMISSED. Plaintiff's claims against the anonymous defendants remain pending. (See Doc. 13 at 7-10 (authorizing limited jurisdictional discovery).)
The Court notes that Plaintiff Eddie Holmes's request for issuance of a subpoena includes the statement: "Mr. Holmes deeply feels that Mr. Schmid [as owner] is responsible under the respondeat superior of the misconduct of his employees through this situation/ that has cost Mr. Holmes a great deal." (Doc. 14 at 1 (alteration in original).) To the extent that this statement is intended as an objection to the Magistrate Judge's determination that Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege a relationship between Defendant Schmid and the alleged tortfeasor to support Defendant's Schmid's vicarious liability (Doc. 12 at 5), it is insufficient to alter the Court's conclusion. Cf. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ("[T]he tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.") .
The Court reviews de novo a magistrate judge's findings to which a party objects, and the Court reviews for clear error the portions of a report and recommendation to which a party does not object. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Merchant v. Nationwide Recovery Serv., Inc., 440 F.Supp.3d 1369, 1371 (N.D.Ga. 2020) (citing Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed.Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam)) (outlining the standard of review for report and recommendations).
SO ORDERED.