Richardson v. Porchia, 1:16-cv-00154-KGB/JTK. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20190711741
Visitors: 14
Filed: Jul. 10, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 10, 2019
Summary: ORDER KRISTINE G. BAKER , District Judge . Before the Court are the Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney (Dkt. No. 56). No objections have been filed, and the time to file an objection has passed. Plaintiff Angela Richardson did file a notice four days after the Proposed Findings and Recommendation were docketed, which Judge Kearney construed as a motion for extension of time to serve separate defendant Alexzandria Cofield (Dkt
Summary: ORDER KRISTINE G. BAKER , District Judge . Before the Court are the Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney (Dkt. No. 56). No objections have been filed, and the time to file an objection has passed. Plaintiff Angela Richardson did file a notice four days after the Proposed Findings and Recommendation were docketed, which Judge Kearney construed as a motion for extension of time to serve separate defendant Alexzandria Cofield (Dkt...
More
ORDER
KRISTINE G. BAKER, District Judge.
Before the Court are the Proposed Findings and Recommendations submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney (Dkt. No. 56). No objections have been filed, and the time to file an objection has passed. Plaintiff Angela Richardson did file a notice four days after the Proposed Findings and Recommendation were docketed, which Judge Kearney construed as a motion for extension of time to serve separate defendant Alexzandria Cofield (Dkt. No. 57). The Court does not construe this notice as a timely objection to the Proposed Findings and Recommendation, although the Court has reviewed and considered the filing.
After a careful review of the Proposed Findings and Recommendations, the Court concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommendations should be, and hereby are, approved and adopted as this Court's findings in all respects (Id.). Therefore, the Court denies plaintiff Angela Richardson's initial motion for default judgment against Ms. Cofield based on the then-existing service issues and return of service issues identified in the Proposed Findings and Recommendations (Dkt. Nos. 48, 56). This Order does not address nor rule on the current pending second motion for default judgment filed by Ms. Richardson against Ms. Cofield (Dkt. No. 66). That second motion remains pending.
So ordered.
Source: Leagle
