H-W TECHNOLOGY, L.C. v. APPLE INC., 3:11-CV-0651-G (BH). (2012)
Court: District Court, N.D. Texas
Number: infdco20120320d26
Visitors: 30
Filed: Mar. 19, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 19, 2012
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE A. JOE FISH, Senior District Judge. After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), the undersigned district judge is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct and they are accepted as the findin
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE A. JOE FISH, Senior District Judge. After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), the undersigned district judge is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct and they are accepted as the finding..
More
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
A. JOE FISH, Senior District Judge.
After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned district judge is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct and they are accepted as the findings and conclusions of the court. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(e), filed August 8, 2011 (docket entry 195), is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
