BRESTLE v. U.S., CV212-116. (2014)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20140624949
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 23, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 23, 2014
Summary: ORDER LISA GODBEY WOOD, Chief District Judge. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Gary Brestle's ("Brestle") Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, wherein he recommended that Brestle's Rule 60(b)(2) motion be denied and that the undersigned's Order entered October 22, 2012, should remain the Order of the Court. (Doc. No. 65). Brestle's Objections reveal nothing which interferes with this Court's previous Orders or which indicates that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendatio
Summary: ORDER LISA GODBEY WOOD, Chief District Judge. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Gary Brestle's ("Brestle") Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, wherein he recommended that Brestle's Rule 60(b)(2) motion be denied and that the undersigned's Order entered October 22, 2012, should remain the Order of the Court. (Doc. No. 65). Brestle's Objections reveal nothing which interferes with this Court's previous Orders or which indicates that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation..
More
ORDER
LISA GODBEY WOOD, Chief District Judge.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Gary Brestle's ("Brestle") Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, wherein he recommended that Brestle's Rule 60(b)(2) motion be denied and that the undersigned's Order entered October 22, 2012, should remain the Order of the Court. (Doc. No. 65). Brestle's Objections reveal nothing which interferes with this Court's previous Orders or which indicates that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation should be rejected.
Brestle's Objections are overruled. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted as the opinion of the Court. Brestle's Rule 60(b)(2) Motion is DENIED. Since the filing of his Objections, Brestle also has inundated this Court with various motions, including a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. Nos. 60, 76, 79, 80, 81, 82). Brestle's motions are summarily DENIED. The undersigned's Order entered October 22, 2012, shall remain the Order of the Court. This case shall remain closed.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
