HELTON v. BADEN, 1:11-CV-134 (WLS). (2012)
Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20120813612
Visitors: 20
Filed: Aug. 10, 2012
Latest Update: Aug. 10, 2012
Summary: ORDER W. LOUIS SANDS, District Judge. Before the Court is a Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff, filed April 18, 2012. (Doc. 22). It recommends that Plaintiff's Motion to the Court (Doc. 18), which the Magistrate Judge interpreted as a Motion seeking injunctive relief, be denied. (Doc. 22 at 2). The Recommendation provided the Parties with fourteen (14) days to file written objections to the recommendations therein. ( Id. ) The period for objections expired
Summary: ORDER W. LOUIS SANDS, District Judge. Before the Court is a Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff, filed April 18, 2012. (Doc. 22). It recommends that Plaintiff's Motion to the Court (Doc. 18), which the Magistrate Judge interpreted as a Motion seeking injunctive relief, be denied. (Doc. 22 at 2). The Recommendation provided the Parties with fourteen (14) days to file written objections to the recommendations therein. ( Id. ) The period for objections expired ..
More
ORDER
W. LOUIS SANDS, District Judge.
Before the Court is a Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff, filed April 18, 2012. (Doc. 22). It recommends that Plaintiff's Motion to the Court (Doc. 18), which the Magistrate Judge interpreted as a Motion seeking injunctive relief, be denied. (Doc. 22 at 2).
The Recommendation provided the Parties with fourteen (14) days to file written objections to the recommendations therein. (Id.) The period for objections expired on Monday, May 7, 2012; no objections have been filed to date.1 (See Docket).
Upon full review and consideration upon the record, the Court finds that said Recommendation (Doc. 22) 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 Motion to the Court (Doc. 18) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. On April 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 23). The Court, upon reviewing Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 23), will address the Motion separately on its own merits, and will not interpret the Motion for Injunctive Relief (Doc. 23) as Plaintiff's Objection to the April 18, 2012 Recommendation.
Source: Leagle
