Dragseth v. Crown Equipment Corporation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
JACOB DRAGSETH, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-25-CA-00318-FB
§
CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, §
§
Defendant. §
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, filed
in the above-captioned cause on September 3, 2026. (ECF No. 46). To date, no objections to the
Report and Recommendation have been received.1
Because no party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court
need not conduct a de novo review. 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."). The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finds its
reasoning to be neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219,
1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 46) is ACCEPTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that Plaintiff
Jacob Dragseth’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Denying Leave to Amend and, in the
1 Any party who desires to object to a Magistrate's findings and recommendations must serve and file his, her or its written objections within
fourteen days after being served with a copy of the findings and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 635(b)(1). If service upon a party is made by mailing
a copy to the party’s last known address, “service is complete upon mailing.” FED. R. CIV. P. 5(b)(2)(C). If service is by electronic means, “service is
complete upon transmission.” Id. at (E).
Case 5:25-cv-00318-FB Document 47 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 2

alternative, Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice (“Motion”) (ECF No. 42) is GRANTED
in PART and DENIED in PART. Insofar as Plaintiff’s Motion asks the Court to reconsider the
Magistrate Judge’s prior recommendation denying the motion to amend the pleadings out of time, the
Motion is DENIED. However, insofar as the Motion requests to voluntarily dismiss this matter
pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), it is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The
parties are explicitly granted the right to reuse all discovery and work product in the subsequent
litigation. Accordingly, the pending Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 25) is DENIED as
MOOT without prejudice to re-urging the arguments therein at a later time or in a different case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that remaining motions pending with the Court, if any, are
Dismissed as Moot and this case is now CLOSED.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED this 9th day of October, 2026.
_________________________________________________
FRED BIERY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
.
2
Case 5:25-cv-00318-FB Document 47 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 2