JACKSON v. JONES, 4:14CV00348 SWW/JTR. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20160608592
Visitors: 27
Filed: Jun. 07, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 07, 2016
Summary: ORDER SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT , District Judge . The Court has reviewed the Recommendation submitted by United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray. No objections have been filed. 1 After careful review, the Recommendation is approved and adopted in its entirety as this Court's findings in all respects. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 33) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FootNotes 1. On motion of plaintiff, the Court, by O
Summary: ORDER SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT , District Judge . The Court has reviewed the Recommendation submitted by United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray. No objections have been filed. 1 After careful review, the Recommendation is approved and adopted in its entirety as this Court's findings in all respects. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 33) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. FootNotes 1. On motion of plaintiff, the Court, by Or..
More
ORDER
SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, District Judge.
The Court has reviewed the Recommendation submitted by United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray. No objections have been filed.1 After careful review, the Recommendation is approved and adopted in its entirety as this Court's findings in all respects.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 33) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
FootNotes
1. On motion of plaintiff, the Court, by Order entered January 29, 2016 [doc.#50], granted plaintiff a 90-day extension of time in which to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation. On May 2, 2016 (three days after the 90-day extension expired), plaintiff filed a motion for another 90-day extension in which to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation. In her motion, plaintiff stated she "need a extension due to medical reason for 90 days. . . ." Because plaintiff did not adequately explain the "medical reason" that was preventing her from filing her objections to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation but yet did not prevent her from filing a motion for an extension of time to file her objections, the Court, rather than a 90-day extension, entered an Order [doc.#52] on May 5, 2016, granting plaintiff until June 3, 2016-35 extra days-in which to file her objections to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation. That date has come and gone with no objections being filed.
Source: Leagle
