Source: http://ri.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170606_0000115.DRI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 23:13:12+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Wilson v. UTC Laboratories, L.L.C.
Wilson v. UTC Laboratories, L.L.C.
UTC LABORATORIES, L.L.C., d/b/a RENAISSANCE RX; SYNTACTX LLC, Defendants.
Before the Court are Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Syntactx, LLC (ECF No. 20) and Defendant UTC Laboratories, L.L.C., d/b/a Renaissance RX (“Renaissance”) (ECF No. 23). These motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Lincoln D. Almond for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Magistrate Judge Almond recommends that the Court grant Defendant Syntactx LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment. (R&R, ECF No. 50.) Plaintiff was required to file any objection to that recommendation within fourteen days. (Id. at 14 (citing DRI LR Cv 72).) Having heard no objection from Plaintiff, that portion of Magistrate Judge Almond's recommendation (ECF No. 50) is ACCEPTED, and Defendant Syntactx LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED. See United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986).
That leaves Defendant Renaissance's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 23). Magistrate Judge Almond recommends that the Court grant Renaissance's Motion with respect to Counts I, II, III, and V, but denied with respect to Count IV. Once again, having heard no objection from Plaintiff, Magistrate Judge Almond's recommendation is ACCEPTED, and Defendant Renaissance's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED with respect to Counts I, II, III, and V. However, because Defendant Renaissance objects to Magistrate Judge Almond's recommendation that summary judgment be denied with respect to Count IV (Renaissance Obj. to R&R, ECF No. 53), the Court reviews that issue de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
In its Objection to the Report and Recommendation, Renaissance provides two arguments for why summary judgment should be granted in its favor as to Count IV. Renaissance first argues that Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of damages. Problematically, however, Renaissance did not raise this issue before Magistrate Judge Almond. (See Renaissance's Mem. in Support of Mot. for Summ. J. 12-14, ECF No. 23-1; Renaissance's Suppl. Mem. in Support of Mot. for Summ. J. 7-8, ECF No. 49.) As was noted in the Report and Recommendation, Renaissance's argument for summary judgment on Count IV was based “solely on its position that Plaintiff agreed or consented to act as an RPI.” (R&R 12, ECF No. 50.) The issue of whether Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence as to damages is therefore waived for the purposes of Renaissance's Motion for Summary Judgment. See Curet-Velazquez v. ACEMLA de Puerto Rico, Inc., 656 F.3d 47, 54 (1st Cir. 2011); Borden v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 836 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1987).
Magistrate Judge Almond's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 50) is ACCEPTED. Defendant Syntactx LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED, and Defendant Renaissance's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED with respect to Counts I, II, III, and V, but DENIED with respect to Count IV.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 636
 v. 
 V. 
 § 636
 v. 
 v.