U.S. v. BRYANT, 1:09CR72-1. (2013)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20130605b04
Visitors: 11
Filed: Jun. 04, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 04, 2013
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, Jr., District Judge. On April 25, 2013, the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation was filed and notice was served on the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636. (Docs. 48 and 49.) No objections were filed within the time limits prescribed by Section 636. Therefore, the court need not make a de novo review and the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation is hereby adopted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner's Letter Motions (Docs. 42, 43 and 44) related to hi
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, Jr., District Judge. On April 25, 2013, the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation was filed and notice was served on the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636. (Docs. 48 and 49.) No objections were filed within the time limits prescribed by Section 636. Therefore, the court need not make a de novo review and the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation is hereby adopted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner's Letter Motions (Docs. 42, 43 and 44) related to his..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, Jr., District Judge.
On April 25, 2013, the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation was filed and notice was served on the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. (Docs. 48 and 49.) No objections were filed within the time limits prescribed by Section 636.
Therefore, the court need not make a de novo review and the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation is hereby adopted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner's Letter Motions (Docs. 42, 43 and 44) related to his efforts to have the detainer against him removed are DENIED for being moot.
Source: Leagle
