IN RE MIRAPEX PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, 07-1836 (MJD/FLN) (2013)
Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
Number: infdco20130422e68
Visitors: 15
Filed: Apr. 19, 2013
Latest Update: Apr. 19, 2013
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL J. DAVIS, Chief District Judge. The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel dated February 13, 2013. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review upon the record. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based upon that review, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL J. DAVIS, Chief District Judge. The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel dated February 13, 2013. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review upon the record. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based upon that review, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge ..
More
ORDER
MICHAEL J. DAVIS, Chief District Judge.
The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel dated February 13, 2013. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.
Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review upon the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based upon that review, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Noel dated February 13, 2013.
Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel dated February 13, 2013 [Docket No. 81].
2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment [Docket No. 56] is GRANTED.
3. Plaintiff's cross-motion to stay Defendants' motion for summary judgment pending discovery [Docket No. 65] is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Source: Leagle
