Jordan v. Longhorn Emergency Medical Associates, P.A., 2:17-CV-00648-JRG-RSP. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
Number: infdco20180206829
Visitors: 17
Filed: Jan. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 26, 2018
Summary: ORDER RODNEY GILSTRAP , District Judge . The above entitled and numbered civil action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636. Now before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 20) by Magistrate Judge Payne, which recommends that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defenses (Dkt. No. 10) be denied, but without prejudice to re-urge the motion after the parties propose scheduling for the remainder of this case. Neither party has objected
Summary: ORDER RODNEY GILSTRAP , District Judge . The above entitled and numbered civil action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636. Now before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 20) by Magistrate Judge Payne, which recommends that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defenses (Dkt. No. 10) be denied, but without prejudice to re-urge the motion after the parties propose scheduling for the remainder of this case. Neither party has objected ..
More
ORDER
RODNEY GILSTRAP, District Judge.
The above entitled and numbered civil action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Now before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 20) by Magistrate Judge Payne, which recommends that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defenses (Dkt. No. 10) be denied, but without prejudice to re-urge the motion after the parties propose scheduling for the remainder of this case. Neither party has objected to that recommendation.
Having considered Plaintiff's Motion (Dkt. No. 10), Defendant's Brief in Opposition (Dkt. No. 14), and the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 20), the Court concludes Magistrate Judge Payne's recommendation is correct. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 20) is hereby ADOPTED. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defenses (Dkt. No. 10) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to re-urge the motion after the parties propose scheduling for the remainder of this case.
Source: Leagle
