England v. O'Briant, 1:17-cv-185. (2019)
Court: District Court, W.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20191231a27
Visitors: 4
Filed: Dec. 30, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 30, 2019
Summary: ORDER JANET T. NEFF , District Judge . This is a civil action. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Obtain a Writ of Assistance (ECF No. 119). The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation on December 4, 2019, recommending that Plaintiff's motion be denied. The Report and Recommendation was duly served on the parties. 1 No objections have been filed. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). Accordingly: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No
Summary: ORDER JANET T. NEFF , District Judge . This is a civil action. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Obtain a Writ of Assistance (ECF No. 119). The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation on December 4, 2019, recommending that Plaintiff's motion be denied. The Report and Recommendation was duly served on the parties. 1 No objections have been filed. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). Accordingly: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No...
More
ORDER
JANET T. NEFF, District Judge.
This is a civil action. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Obtain a Writ of Assistance (ECF No. 119). The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation on December 4, 2019, recommending that Plaintiff's motion be denied. The Report and Recommendation was duly served on the parties.1 No objections have been filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 121) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Obtain a Writ of Assistance (ECF No. 119) is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation.
FootNotes
1. Service of the Report and Recommendation on Defendant was returned, marked "return to sender," "not deliverable as addressed" and "unable to forward" (ECF No. 122). Defendant has failed to keep the Court apprised of his current address.
Source: Leagle
