Filed: Sep. 27, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 27, 2018
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DOLLY M. GEE , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the Third Amended Complaint, the relevant records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. On July 9, 2018, Plaintiffs filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation attaching various unauthenticated exhibits, including "Arsenic, Hair" test results for Plaintiff Marina Riebeling dated Ju
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DOLLY M. GEE , District Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, the Court has reviewed the Third Amended Complaint, the relevant records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. On July 9, 2018, Plaintiffs filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation attaching various unauthenticated exhibits, including "Arsenic, Hair" test results for Plaintiff Marina Riebeling dated Jun..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DOLLY M. GEE, District Judge.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Third Amended Complaint, the relevant records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.
On July 9, 2018, Plaintiffs filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation attaching various unauthenticated exhibits, including "Arsenic, Hair" test results for Plaintiff Marina Riebeling dated June 26, 2018 appearing to show arsenic levels within a normal range. See Dkt. 187 at 65. On July 23, 2018, Defendant filed a Response to Plaintiffs' Objections. Dkt. 192.
The Court has engaged in de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Plaintiffs have objected. The Court finds the exhibits attached to the Objections do not support Plaintiffs' Opposition to summary judgment because they are (a) either untimely or duplicative of Plaintiffs' submissions in support of their Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, (b) inadmissible lay opinion, and (c) fail to establish causation even if considered on the merits. Therefore, the Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that (1) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; and (2) Judgment shall be entered DISMISSING this action with prejudice.
