Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

CARDENAS-URIARTE v. USA, 14-cv-00747-JPG-PMF. (2015)

Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois Number: infdco20150902861
Filed: Sep. 01, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 01, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER J. PHIL GILBERT , District Judge . This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation 1 ("R & R") (Doc. 50) of Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier with regard to Defendants USA and Charles E. Samuels' Motion (Doc. 44) for Partial Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Request for Preliminary Injunctive Relief/Request for Hearing (Doc. 47). Neither party filed an objection to the R & R. The Court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the finding
More

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation1 ("R & R") (Doc. 50) of Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier with regard to Defendants USA and Charles E. Samuels' Motion (Doc. 44) for Partial Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Request for Preliminary Injunctive Relief/Request for Hearing (Doc. 47). Neither party filed an objection to the R & R.

The Court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations of the magistrate judge in a report and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court must review de novo the portions of the report to which objections are made. The Court has discretion to conduct a new hearing and may consider the record before the magistrate judge anew or receive any further evidence deemed necessary. Id. "If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error." Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999).

The Court has received no objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has reviewed the entire file and finds that the R & R is not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (Doc. 50) and GRANTS Defendants USA and Charles E. Samuels' Motion (Doc. 44) for Partial Summary Judgment. Counts 1 and 6 are DISMISSED without prejudice and Plaintiff's Request for Preliminary Injunctive Relief/Request for Hearing (Doc. 47) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. The R & R incorrectly states that the merit review was conducted on July 23, 2015. The date should read July 23, 2014.
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