ARMSTRONG v. SECRETARY DEPT OF CORRECTIONS et al
Filing
22
ORDER ADOPTING 11 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Plaintiff's "Motion to Reinstate" and "Motion to Accept Amended Complaint as Timely Filed", ECF Nos. 8 , 9 , are DENIED, and Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 10 , SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT. All other motions filed after entry of the Report and Recommendation are MOOT. This case is closed. Signed by CHIEF JUDGE M CASEY RODGERS on 4/3/2017. (sdw)
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
MORGAN ALLEN ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff,
v.
CASE NO. 3:17cv39/MCR/EMT
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes on for consideration upon the chief magistrate judge’s Report
and Recommendation dated March 1, 2017. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff has been
furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and has been afforded an
opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section
636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of any timely filed objections.
Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections
thereto timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should
be adopted.
Page 2 of 2
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:
1.
The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and
incorporated by reference in this Order.
2.
Plaintiff’s “Motion to Reinstate” and “Motion to Accept Amended
Complaint as Timely Filed”, ECF Nos. 8, 9, are DENIED, and Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint, ECF No. 10, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT.
3.
All other motions filed after entry of the Report and Recommendation
are MOOT. This case is closed.
DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of April, 2017.
s/
M. Casey Rodgers
M. CASEY RODGERS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case No. 3:17cv39/MCR/EMT
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?