IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
TRAXCELL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, §
§ § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-CV-00412-RWS-RSP Plaintiff,
§ §
v.
§ §
NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS
§
US LLC, NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND
§
NETWORKS OY, NOKIA
§
CORPORATION, NOKIA
§
TECHNOLOGIES OY, ALCATEL-
§
LUCENT USA, INC., HMD GLOBAL, T-
§
MOBILE USA, INC.,
§
§ Defendants. §
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant T-Mobile’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim. Docket No. 33. The Court previously referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Payne, for consideration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.
The Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 74) recommending the motion be denied. Defendant has not objected to the report. Accordingly, Defendant is not entitled to de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions and recommendations, and except upon grounds of plain error, the parties are not entitled to appellate review of the unobjected to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n., 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc).
Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the pleadings in the cause and agrees with the Report
2.
of the Magistrate Judge. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 683 (1980) (“[T]he statute permits the district court to give to the magistrate’s proposed findings of fact and recommendations ‘such weight as [their] merit commands and the sounds discretion of the judge warrants . . . .’ ”) (quoting Mathews v. Weber, 23 U.S. 261, 275 (1976)). It is accordingly
ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 74) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court and Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 33) is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED this 11th day of December, 2019.