Filed: Dec. 08, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 08, 2015
Summary: Memorandum Order KIM R. GIBSON , District Judge . Plaintiff's motion to certify a class at docket no. 62 and motion to alter the judgment at docket no. 63 were referred to Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(3) and Local Rule 72 for Magistrate Judges. The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation on November 5, 2015, docket no. 65, recommending that the motion to certify a class be denied without prejudice and the motion to alter the judgment be denied. The p
Summary: Memorandum Order KIM R. GIBSON , District Judge . Plaintiff's motion to certify a class at docket no. 62 and motion to alter the judgment at docket no. 63 were referred to Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(3) and Local Rule 72 for Magistrate Judges. The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation on November 5, 2015, docket no. 65, recommending that the motion to certify a class be denied without prejudice and the motion to alter the judgment be denied. The pa..
More
Memorandum Order
KIM R. GIBSON, District Judge.
Plaintiff's motion to certify a class at docket no. 62 and motion to alter the judgment at docket no. 63 were referred to Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) and Local Rule 72 for Magistrate Judges.
The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation on November 5, 2015, docket no. 65, recommending that the motion to certify a class be denied without prejudice and the motion to alter the judgment be denied.
The parties were notified that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they had fourteen days to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation. No one has filed objections, and the time to do so has expired.
After review of the Report and Recommendation and noting the lack of objection thereto, the following order is entered:
AND NOW, this 8th day of December, 2015, it is
ORDERED that the motion to certify a class at docket no. 62 is denied without prejudice, and the motion to alter the judgment at docket no. 63 is denied. The Report and Recommendation is adopted as the opinion of the Court.
