OLSON v. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, 14-cv-3213 (JNE/BRT). (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
Number: infdco20150724a39
Visitors: 5
Filed: Jul. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 23, 2015
Summary: ORDER JOAN N. ERICKSEN , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation. The United States Magistrate Judge recommends that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be granted, that the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint be denied, and that this action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Report and Recommendation indicated that written objections were to be served and filed by June 29, 2015. On June 26, the Plaintiff filed a
Summary: ORDER JOAN N. ERICKSEN , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation. The United States Magistrate Judge recommends that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be granted, that the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint be denied, and that this action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Report and Recommendation indicated that written objections were to be served and filed by June 29, 2015. On June 26, the Plaintiff filed a m..
More
ORDER
JOAN N. ERICKSEN, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation. The United States Magistrate Judge recommends that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be granted, that the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint be denied, and that this action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Report and Recommendation indicated that written objections were to be served and filed by June 29, 2015. On June 26, the Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an extension of that deadline. The Plaintiff then timely filed his objections to the Report and Recommendation on June 29. His motion for an extension of time is therefore denied as moot.
The Court has considered the Plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation. After conducting a de novo review of the record, the Court now overrules those objections and adopts the Report and Recommendation.
Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Plaintiff's Objections [ECF No. 34] are OVERRULED.
2. The Plaintifff's Motion for Extension of Time [ECF No. 33] is DENIED AS MOOT.
3. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 32] is ADOPTED.
4. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 12] is GRANTED.
5. The Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint [ECF No. 24] is DENIED.
6. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Source: Leagle
