WINDING v. RUTLEDGE, 3:13cv289-CWR-LRA. (2014)
Court: District Court, S.D. Mississippi
Number: infdco20140818d84
Visitors: 4
Filed: Aug. 15, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 15, 2014
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CARLTON W. REEVES, District Judge. This matter is before the court pursuant to the Report and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball, which denied Plaintiff James Winding's motions to continue in forma pauperis [Docket No. 68] and for preliminary injunctive relief [Docket No. 69]. The Report and Recommendations clearly notified the respective parties in the above-styled and numbered cause that failure to file written objectio
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CARLTON W. REEVES, District Judge. This matter is before the court pursuant to the Report and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball, which denied Plaintiff James Winding's motions to continue in forma pauperis [Docket No. 68] and for preliminary injunctive relief [Docket No. 69]. The Report and Recommendations clearly notified the respective parties in the above-styled and numbered cause that failure to file written objection..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CARLTON W. REEVES, District Judge.
This matter is before the court pursuant to the Report and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball, which denied Plaintiff James Winding's motions to continue in forma pauperis [Docket No. 68] and for preliminary injunctive relief [Docket No. 69]. The Report and Recommendations clearly notified the respective parties in the above-styled and numbered cause that failure to file written objections to the findings and recommendations contained within fourteen (14) days from the date of filing would bar further appeal in accordance with Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. Rule Civ. P. 72(b). This court, finding that there have been no submissions of written objections by any party, hereby adopts said Report and Recommendations as the order of this court.1
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. To the extent that Plaintiff's subsequent filings can be construed as objections, they fail to demonstrate that the Magistrate Judge's rulings were clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
Source: Leagle
