JACKSON v. ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 4:16-CV-00988. (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
Number: infdco20171003e59
Visitors: 4
Filed: Oct. 02, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 02, 2017
Summary: MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AMOS L. MAZZANT, III , District Judge . Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this matter having been heretofore referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636. On September 13, 2017, the report of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. #38) was entered containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations that Defendant Allstate Vehicle and Property Ins
Summary: MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AMOS L. MAZZANT, III , District Judge . Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this matter having been heretofore referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636. On September 13, 2017, the report of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. #38) was entered containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations that Defendant Allstate Vehicle and Property Insu..
More
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AMOS L. MAZZANT, III, District Judge.
Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this matter having been heretofore referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On September 13, 2017, the report of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. #38) was entered containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations that Defendant Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #27) be denied.
Having received the report of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto having been timely filed, the Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts the Magistrate Judge's report as the findings and conclusions of the Court.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that Defendant's motion (Dkt. #27) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
