MEDINA v. FISCHER, 11-Civ-176 (LAP) (JLC). (2013)
Court: District Court, S.D. New York
Number: infdco20130625b98
Visitors: 11
Filed: Jun. 13, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 13, 2013
Summary: ORDER LORETTA A. PRESKA, Chief District Judge. On March 29, 2013, Magistrate Judge Cott issued a Report and Recommendation denying non-party Martin Hodge's ("Hodge") motion to intervene [dkt no. 1361.] 1 Objections to that Report and Recommendation were due on April 12, 2013. Having received no objections and finding Judge Cott's decision to be correct and appropriate upon de novo review, see Fed. R. Civ, P. 72(b), his Report and Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED. 2 SO ORDERED. FootNote
Summary: ORDER LORETTA A. PRESKA, Chief District Judge. On March 29, 2013, Magistrate Judge Cott issued a Report and Recommendation denying non-party Martin Hodge's ("Hodge") motion to intervene [dkt no. 1361.] 1 Objections to that Report and Recommendation were due on April 12, 2013. Having received no objections and finding Judge Cott's decision to be correct and appropriate upon de novo review, see Fed. R. Civ, P. 72(b), his Report and Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED. 2 SO ORDERED. FootNotes..
More
ORDER
LORETTA A. PRESKA, Chief District Judge.
On March 29, 2013, Magistrate Judge Cott issued a Report and Recommendation denying non-party Martin Hodge's ("Hodge") motion to intervene [dkt no. 1361.]1 Objections to that Report and Recommendation were due on April 12, 2013. Having received no objections and finding Judge Cott's decision to be correct and appropriate upon de novo review, see Fed. R. Civ, P. 72(b), his Report and Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED.2
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Hodge also moved for appointment of counsel and for permission to proceed in forma pauperis. Because his motion to intervene is denied, those requests are moot.
2. As noted in the Report and Recommendation, the denial of Hodge's motion to intervene is without prejudice to Hodge's right to pursue any of his claims in a separate action.
Source: Leagle
