ALLEN v. BANK OF AMERICA CORP., 10-4205 (MJD/JSM). (2011)
Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
Number: infdco20110829727
Visitors: 8
Filed: Aug. 26, 2011
Latest Update: Aug. 26, 2011
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL J. DAVIS, Chief Judge. The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron dated July 22, 2011. [Docket No. 71] Plaintiff Horace Dwayne Allen filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review upon the record of the portion of the Magistrate Judge's disposition to which specific written objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1);
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL J. DAVIS, Chief Judge. The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron dated July 22, 2011. [Docket No. 71] Plaintiff Horace Dwayne Allen filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review upon the record of the portion of the Magistrate Judge's disposition to which specific written objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); L..
More
ORDER
MICHAEL J. DAVIS, Chief Judge.
The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron dated July 22, 2011. [Docket No. 71] Plaintiff Horace Dwayne Allen filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.
Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review upon the record of the portion of the Magistrate Judge's disposition to which specific written objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based upon that review, the Court ADOPTS the well-reasoned Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mayeron dated July 22, 2011. The Court further states that it has carefully reviewed the entire record in this case, including the transcript of the hearing before Magistrate Judge Mayeron, and concludes that there is no evidence of judicial bias.
Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 3] is GRANTED and this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend [Docket No. 53] is DENIED.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Source: Leagle
