The opinion of the court was delivered by: U. S. District Judge Honorable Edward J. Lodge
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On May 25, 2011, United States Chief Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that Defendant James F. Page's Motion for Summary Judgment be denied. (Dkt. 56.) Any party may challenge a Magistrate Judge's proposed recommendation regarding by filing written objections within ten days after being served with a copy of the Magistrate Judges's Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district court must then "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." Id. The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). No objections to the report and recommendation were filed. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the parties' briefing on the Motion, briefing, and the entire record in this matter. Based upon this review, the Court finds the Report and Recommendation has correctly decided the Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation that deadlines for limited discovery and the filing of any amended complaint and/or second motion for summary judgment.
Having conducted a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation, this Court finds that Chief Magistrate Judge Dale's Report and Recommendation is well founded in law and consistent with this Court's own view of the evidence in the record. Acting on the recommendation of Chief Magistrate Judge Dale's, and this Court being fully advised in the premises, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation entered on May 25, 2011, (Dkt. 56), should be, and is hereby, INCORPORATED by reference and ADOPTED in its entirety.
THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1) Defendant James F. Page's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 41) is DENIED.
2) Plaintiff Mark S. Wicklund shall have until on or before August 9, 2011 in which to file an amended complaint.
3) The parties may engage in limited discovery in this matter as discussed in the Report and Recommendation until on or before September 12, 2011.
4) Any additional dispositive motions shall be filed on or before October 12, 2011.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw ...