Filed: Jan. 27, 2017
Latest Update: Jan. 27, 2017
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT , Chief District Judge . Findings and Recommendation having been filed on January 5, 2017, and served concurrently upon those counsel of record who are registered participants of CM/ECF, and served on January 6, 2017, by First Class Mail to the address of record for Maria D. Sommers, and no objections having been filed by any party, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, pursuant to Title 28, United States
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT , Chief District Judge . Findings and Recommendation having been filed on January 5, 2017, and served concurrently upon those counsel of record who are registered participants of CM/ECF, and served on January 6, 2017, by First Class Mail to the address of record for Maria D. Sommers, and no objections having been filed by any party, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, pursuant to Title 28, United States C..
More
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT, Chief District Judge.
Findings and Recommendation having been filed on January 5, 2017, and served concurrently upon those counsel of record who are registered participants of CM/ECF, and served on January 6, 2017, by First Class Mail to the address of record for Maria D. Sommers, and no objections having been filed by any party,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 74.2, the "(1) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY DEFENDANTS KAY OKAMOTO, ROY OKAMOTO, AND OKAMOTO REALTY'S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND (2) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF MARIA D. SOMMERS'S MOTION TO ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT," ECF No. 20, the Findings and Recommendations are adopted as the opinion and order of this Court with the following modification. On January 26, 2017, counsel for Defendants accepted service on behalf of all Defendants as of that date. See ECF No. 25. Accordingly, the court declines to adopt the recommendation that this court "provide Plaintiff with an additional 30 days from the issuance of its order to properly serve Defendants," as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
