claims does not constitute an agreement that if one is rejected the other is necessarily justified or that the losing party waives judicial consideration and determination whether genuine issues of material fact exist. Lawrence v. City of Phila., 527 F.3d 299, 310 (3d Cir.2008) (quoting Rains v. Cascade Indus., Inc., 402 F.2d 241, 245 (3d Cir.1968)). Each movant must show that no genuine issue of material fact exists; if both parties fail to carry their respective burdens, the court must deny the motions. See Facenda v. N.F.L. Films, Inc., 542 F.3d 1007, 1023 (3d Cir.2008). When reviewing each motion, the court is bound to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; United States v. Hall, 730 F.Supp. 646, 648 OMUD.Pa.1980). B. Sta .1998) (<HOLDING>). III. Discussion Plaintiffs’ objections (Doc.
holding that a partys failure to raise objections to the report and recommendation waives the partys right to review in the district court holding that district courts adoption of the magistrate judges report and recommendation one day after issuance did not constitute reversible error where district court conducted a meaningful review of the report and recommendation holding that district court error was not clear error in denying petition for mandamus holding that we review for clear error the bankruptcy courts factual findings holding that the court will review the report and recommendation for clear error