Summary
This United States District Court order adopts a magistrate judge's report and recommendation regarding pending dispositive motions in a consumer rights lawsuit. The court denies the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment without prejudice to allow for discovery and grants in part the defendant's motion to strike or permit discovery. The order also continues the previous referral of the case to the assigned magistrate judge.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment should be denied without prejudice.
- Whether the defendant's motion to strike the plaintiff's motion (or alternatively to allow discovery) should be granted in part.
Holdings
- The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to respond to the magistrate judge's request for a response.
- The court granted in part the defendant's motion to strike, allowing the defendant an opportunity to conduct discovery.
Key quotations
“The parties’ failure to file objections to the report and recommendation waives any further right to appeal.”
“Likewise, the failure to object to the magistrate judge’s report releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter.”
Factual background
Plaintiff Matthew Aaron Simpson, II sued Experian in a consumer‑rights action. The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment; the defendant moved to strike that motion or, alternatively, to allow discovery. The plaintiff did not respond to the magistrate's request for a response.
Procedural history
Magistrate Judge Kimberly G. Altman issued a report on May 19, 2025 recommending denial of the plaintiff's summary judgment motion and partial grant of the defendant's motion to strike. The plaintiff failed to respond to the magistrate's request. The district court adopted the report and issued the present order.