Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

McKNIGHT v. REYNOLDS, 2:14-cv-185-FtM-38DNF. (2014)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20140829u59 Visitors: 15
Filed: Aug. 28, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 28, 2014
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on review of the docket in this action. On August 28, 2014, the Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. #44). Because the dismissal was granted on the basis that Plaintiff's claims were brought outside the applicable four-year statute of limitations, the Court finds that the dismissal is with prejudice. Consequently, the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly, terminate any pen
More

ORDER1

SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on review of the docket in this action. On August 28, 2014, the Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. #44). Because the dismissal was granted on the basis that Plaintiff's claims were brought outside the applicable four-year statute of limitations, the Court finds that the dismissal is with prejudice. Consequently, the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly, terminate any pending motions and close the file.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

1. The Court's dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. #44) is WITH PREJUDICE. 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly, terminate any pending motions and close the file.

FootNotes


1. Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other Web sites, this court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
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