Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Eastwood, 3:16-cv-577. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. Tennessee Number: infdco20190712a36 Visitors: 1
Filed: Jul. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 11, 2019
Summary: ORDER HARRY S. MATTICE, JR. , Magistrate Judge . On June 20, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge Clifton L. Corker filed his Report and Recommendation, [Doc. 61], pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636. Magistrate Judge Corker recommended that the the United States' Motion for Order Confirming Sale of Real Property and Directing Distribution of Sale Proceeds [Doc. 57] be granted and the United States' Proposed Order [Doc. 60-1] be adopted. No party has appeared or otherwise objected to the Magistrat
More

ORDER

On June 20, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge Clifton L. Corker filed his Report and Recommendation, [Doc. 61], pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Magistrate Judge Corker recommended that the the United States' Motion for Order Confirming Sale of Real Property and Directing Distribution of Sale Proceeds [Doc. 57] be granted and the United States' Proposed Order [Doc. 60-1] be adopted. No party has appeared or otherwise objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.1 Nevertheless, upon independent review the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Corker's well-reasoned recommendation.

Accordingly,

• The Court hereby ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Corker's conclusions of law and recommendations [Doc. 61], pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); • The United States' Motion for Order Confirming Sale of Property and Directing Distribution of Sale Proceeds is hereby GRANTED; and • An order confirming the sale of real property and distributing sale proceeds shall be entered separately.

SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Magistrate Judge Corker specifically advised that any objections to his Report and Recommendation "must be filed within fourteen (14) days" of its entry. [Doc. 61 at 2 n.1); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-51 (1985) (noting that "[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings").
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer