Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Coley v. Golkeinllice, 1:17CV362. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina Number: infdco20180329e09 Visitors: 5
Filed: Mar. 28, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2018
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. SCHROEDER , District Judge . The Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge was filed with the court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and, on February 13, `, was served on the parties in this action. Plaintiff filed a lengthy response to the Recommendation. (Doc. 30.) To the extent Plaintiff's response brief objects to the Recommendation, the court has appropriately reviewed the portions of the Magistrate Judge's report to which objection was made and has ma
More

ORDER

The Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge was filed with the court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and, on February 13, `, was served on the parties in this action. Plaintiff filed a lengthy response to the Recommendation. (Doc. 30.)

To the extent Plaintiff's response brief objects to the Recommendation, the court has appropriately reviewed the portions of the Magistrate Judge's report to which objection was made and has made a de novo determination, which is in accord with the Magistrate Judge's report. The court therefore adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' motions to dismiss (Docs. 15, 22) be DENIED, that service of process on all Defendants be QUASHED, and that Plaintiff be given an additional ninety (90) days within which to perfect service on Defendants.

Further, to aid the Plaintiff in facilitating service of process, the Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4 through 12.

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