COONROD v. ASTRUE, 5:11-cv-363 (WLS). (2012)
Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20120405a73
Visitors: 1
Filed: Apr. 04, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 04, 2012
Summary: ORDER W. LOUIS SANDS, District Judge. Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle, filed March 6, 2012. (Doc. 14). It is recommended that Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Doc. 13) be granted and Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) be dismissed. (Doc. 14 at 1). The Report and Recommendation provided the Parties with fourteen (14) days 1 from the date of its service to file written objections to the recommendations therein.
Summary: ORDER W. LOUIS SANDS, District Judge. Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle, filed March 6, 2012. (Doc. 14). It is recommended that Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Doc. 13) be granted and Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) be dismissed. (Doc. 14 at 1). The Report and Recommendation provided the Parties with fourteen (14) days 1 from the date of its service to file written objections to the recommendations therein. ..
More
ORDER
W. LOUIS SANDS, District Judge.
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle, filed March 6, 2012. (Doc. 14). It is recommended that Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Doc. 13) be granted and Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) be dismissed. (Doc. 14 at 1). The Report and Recommendation provided the Parties with fourteen (14) days1 from the date of its service to file written objections to the recommendations therein. (Id.). The period for objections expired on Friday, March 23, 2012, and no objections have been filed to date. (See generally Docket).
Upon full review and consideration of the record, the Court finds that said Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) should be, and hereby is, ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and made the Order of this Court for reason of the findings made and reasons stated therein. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Doc. 14) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The Parties were given an additional three days because service was made by mail. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (adding three days to specified period within which a party may act if service is made under Rule 5(b)(2)(C) by mailing process to a party's last known address).
Source: Leagle
