ARMSTRONG v. SPROUL, 1:11-CV-018 (WLS). (2012)
Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20120228776
Visitors: 15
Filed: Feb. 24, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 24, 2012
Summary: ORDER W. LOUIS SANDS, District Judge. Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff, filed January 9, 2012. (Doc. 41). It is recommended that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution (Doc. 37) be granted due to Plaintiff's failure to diligently prosecute this action. ( Id. ) The Report and Recommendation provided the Parties with fourteen (14) days 1 from the date of its service to file written objections to the recommen
Summary: ORDER W. LOUIS SANDS, District Judge. Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff, filed January 9, 2012. (Doc. 41). It is recommended that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution (Doc. 37) be granted due to Plaintiff's failure to diligently prosecute this action. ( Id. ) The Report and Recommendation provided the Parties with fourteen (14) days 1 from the date of its service to file written objections to the recommend..
More
ORDER
W. LOUIS SANDS, District Judge.
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff, filed January 9, 2012. (Doc. 41). It is recommended that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution (Doc. 37) be granted due to Plaintiff's failure to diligently prosecute this action. (Id.)
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 filing objections expired on Thursday, January 26, 2012; no objections have been filed to date. (See Docket).
Upon full review and consideration upon the record, the Court finds that said Report and Recommendation (Doc. 41) 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, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 37) is GRANTED; all Defendants are dismissed from this action. Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. It is further Ordered that Defendants' initial Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution (Doc. 30) is DENIED-as-moot.
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
