PAPINEAU v. EDMARK, 15-cv-340-SM. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
Number: infdco20151231917
Visitors: 8
Filed: Dec. 29, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 29, 2015
Summary: ORDER STEVEN J. McAULIFFE , District Judge . No objection having been filed, I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone dated December 3, 2015, for the reasons set forth therein. "`[O]nly those issues fairly raised by the objections to the magistrate's report are subject to review in the district court and those not preserved by such objection are precluded on appeal.'" School Union No. 37 v. United Nat'l Ins. Co. , 617 F.3d 554 , 564 (1st Cir
Summary: ORDER STEVEN J. McAULIFFE , District Judge . No objection having been filed, I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone dated December 3, 2015, for the reasons set forth therein. "`[O]nly those issues fairly raised by the objections to the magistrate's report are subject to review in the district court and those not preserved by such objection are precluded on appeal.'" School Union No. 37 v. United Nat'l Ins. Co. , 617 F.3d 554 , 564 (1st Cir...
More
ORDER
STEVEN J. McAULIFFE, District Judge.
No objection having been filed, I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone dated December 3, 2015, for the reasons set forth therein. "`[O]nly those issues fairly raised by the objections to the magistrate's report are subject to review in the district court and those not preserved by such objection are precluded on appeal.'" School Union No. 37 v. United Nat'l Ins. Co., 617 F.3d 554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010) (quoting Keating v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 848 F.2d 271, 275 (1st Cir.1988)); see also United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986) (after proper notice, failure to file a specific objection to magistrate's report will waive the right to appeal).
Plaintiff's requests to voluntarily dismiss this matter are hereby granted (doc. nos. 22, 26, and 27), and this action is dismissed without prejudice. Further, plaintiff's motion seeking an order directing that the defendants' assets be frozen until this matter is concluded (doc. no. 13), and the state defendants' motion to continue and extend answer deadline (doc. no. 31) should be denied as moot.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
