Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Compass Bank v. Dixon, 4:17-CV-1576. (2019)

Court: District Court, S.D. Texas Number: infdco20190219f92 Visitors: 10
Filed: Feb. 15, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 15, 2019
Summary: ORDER ANDREW S. HANEN , District Judge . The Court has before it the Memorandum and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 141), the Defendants' Motion for Clarification, Or in the Alternative, Objection to Memorandum and Recommendation (Doc. No. 146), the Plaintiff's objections thereto (Doc. No. 147, 148), Defendants' Joint Response to Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. No. 150), and the Plaintiff's Reply in Support of its Objections (Doc. No. 155). The Court has conside
More

ORDER

The Court has before it the Memorandum and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 141), the Defendants' Motion for Clarification, Or in the Alternative, Objection to Memorandum and Recommendation (Doc. No. 146), the Plaintiff's objections thereto (Doc. No. 147, 148), Defendants' Joint Response to Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. No. 150), and the Plaintiff's Reply in Support of its Objections (Doc. No. 155). The Court has considered de novo all of the objections and arguments as well as the Defendants' Response as well as the actual motions that are the subject matter of the Memorandum and Recommendation and hereby adopts the Memorandum and Recommendation. The Court notes to the extent that the arguments contained in Defendants' Joint Response (Doc. No. 150) are argued as objections, they were not timely filed and are overruled. That being said, the Court overrules both the Plaintiff's and Defendants' objections and adopts the Memorandum and Report. The actual Motion for Clarification will be ruled upon by Judge Stacy.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer