D'AGOSTINO v. WALSH, 3:12-CV-00065-RCJ-WGC. (2013)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20130711c21
Visitors: 26
Filed: Jul. 10, 2013
Latest Update: Jul. 10, 2013
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. JONES, Chief District Judge. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (#44) entered on June 6, 2013. Plaintiff filed his Objections to United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (#45) on June 20, 2013. The Court has conducted it's de novo review in this case, has fully considered the objections of the Plaintiffs, the pleadings and memoranda of the parties and other relevant matters of record pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule IB 3-2.
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. JONES, Chief District Judge. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (#44) entered on June 6, 2013. Plaintiff filed his Objections to United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (#45) on June 20, 2013. The Court has conducted it's de novo review in this case, has fully considered the objections of the Plaintiffs, the pleadings and memoranda of the parties and other relevant matters of record pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule IB 3-2. ..
More
ORDER
ROBERT C. JONES, Chief District Judge.
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (#44) entered on June 6, 2013. Plaintiff filed his Objections to United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (#45) on June 20, 2013.
The Court has conducted it's de novo review in this case, has fully considered the objections of the Plaintiffs, the pleadings and memoranda of the parties and other relevant matters of record pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule IB 3-2. The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court determines that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (#44) entered on June 6, 2013, is adopted and accepted.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (#27) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Enlargement of Time (#46) is DENIED as MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
