REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

E. CLIFTON KNOWLES, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court upon a "Joint Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction," filed by Defendants on June 30, 2015 (Docket No. 171), and a "Motion for an Enlargement of Time to Respond to Defendants Motion to Dismiss" filed by Plaintiffs (Docket No. 176). With their Motion, Defendants have submitted a Memorandum of Law. Docket No. 172. In their Motion, Plaintiffs seek an enlargement of time until August 31, 2015, in which to respond to the Motion to Dismiss. Docket No. 176.

The undersigned has submitted a Report and Recommendation recommending that five previously-filed separate Motions to Dismiss this action be granted. Docket No. 177. Defendants' instant Motion raises no new grounds that the prior five Motions did not address.

Therefore, the instant Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 171) should be DENIED AS MOOT. The instant Motion for an enlargement of time (Docket No. 176) should also be DENIED AS MOOT.

Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party has fourteen (14) days after service of this Report and Recommendation in which to file any written objections to this Recommendation with the District Court. Any party opposing said objections shall have fourteen (14) days after service of any objections filed to this Report in which to file any response to said objections. Failure to file specific objections within fourteen (14) days of service of this Report and Recommendation can constitute a waiver of further appeal of this Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1985), reh'g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.