Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

JACQUES-SCOTT v. SEARS HOLDINGS CORPORATION, 10-422-LPS-MPT. (2013)

Court: District Court, D. Delaware Number: infdco20130711927 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jul. 10, 2013
Latest Update: Jul. 10, 2013
Summary: ORDER LEONARD P. STARK, District Judge. WHEREAS, Magistrate Judge Thynge issued a Report and Recommendation (D.I. 85) dated June 13, 2013; WHEREAS, the Report and Recommendation recommends that the Court grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment (D.I. 68). WHEREAS, any Objections to the Report and Recommendation (D.I. 85) were to be filed by July 1, 2013; WHEREAS, no party has filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation; WHEREAS, the Court concludes that the Report and Recomme
More

ORDER

LEONARD P. STARK, District Judge.

WHEREAS, Magistrate Judge Thynge issued a Report and Recommendation (D.I. 85) dated June 13, 2013;

WHEREAS, the Report and Recommendation recommends that the Court grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment (D.I. 68).

WHEREAS, any Objections to the Report and Recommendation (D.I. 85) were to be filed by July 1, 2013;

WHEREAS, no party has filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation;

WHEREAS, the Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted for the reasons stated by Magistrate Judge Thynge;

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (D.I. 85) is ADOPTED, and Defendants' motion for summary judgment (D.I. 68) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (D.I. 79) is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs request for an extension of time to file objections to the Report & Recommendation (D.I. 86) is DENIED. Plaintiff has been provided numerous extensions throughout this litigation. The Court has conducted de novo review of the record relating to the summary judgment motion and agrees with the Magistrate Judge's thorough analysis. While the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff and her medical situation (and has reviewed the additional medical records filed under seal, D.I. 87), under the totality of circumstances they do not provide a persuasive basis for extending the deadline to file objections another thirty days.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer