Filed: Mar. 12, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 12, 2020
Summary: Memorandum Order KIM R. GIBSON , District Judge . Plaintiff's post-judgment motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto for proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. 636, and Local Civil Rule 72. The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation on February 27, 2019, ECF no. 125, recommending that the motions for rehearing en banc at ECF no. 122 and ECF no. 123 and the Motion for 60(B)(3) Relief at ECF no. 124, be denied. The parties were notifie
Summary: Memorandum Order KIM R. GIBSON , District Judge . Plaintiff's post-judgment motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto for proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. 636, and Local Civil Rule 72. The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation on February 27, 2019, ECF no. 125, recommending that the motions for rehearing en banc at ECF no. 122 and ECF no. 123 and the Motion for 60(B)(3) Relief at ECF no. 124, be denied. The parties were notified..
More
Memorandum Order
KIM R. GIBSON, District Judge.
Plaintiff's post-judgment motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto for proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636, and Local Civil Rule 72.
The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation on February 27, 2019, ECF no. 125, recommending that the motions for rehearing en banc at ECF no. 122 and ECF no. 123 and the Motion for 60(B)(3) Relief at ECF no. 124, be denied.
The parties were notified that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they had fourteen days to file written objections. Plaintiff filed timely objections, ECF no. 126, which are so cursory that they do not preserve any claim of error.
After review of the record, the Report and Recommendation, and the objections thereto under the reasoned consideration standard, see EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir.2017), the following order is entered:
AND NOW, this 12th day of March 2020, it is
ORDERED that plaintiff's motions at ECF no. 122, ECF no. 123, and ECF no. 124 are denied. The Report and Recommendation at ECF No. 125 is adopted as the opinion of the Court.
