Keller v. Pichardo et al
ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendations re 192 Report and Recommendations. denying 98 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 140 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 160 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 172 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Ursula Ungaro on 7/30/2009. (ail)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-21472-CIV-UNGARO/WHITE PETER FRANCIS KELLER, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN GISULA PICHARDO et al., Defendants. / ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
T H IS CAUSE is before the Court upon the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. (D.E. 98, 140, 160 & 172). The Honorable Patrick A. White, United States Magistrate Judge has
issued a Report and Recommendation dated July 1, 2009, recommending that the motions for summary judgment be denied without prejudice to renew after Plaintiff supplements the record with lumbar spine MRI results by September 1, 2009. The parties have failed to file objections to the Report. See LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 145 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 958 (1988) (holding the failure to file timely objections bars the parties from attacking factual findings on appeal). The matter is ripe for disposition. THIS COURT has made a de novo review of the entire file and record herein, and, being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that United States Magistrate Judge White's Report and Recommendation of July 1, 2009, is RATIFIED, AFFIRMED and ADOPTED IN PART. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment (D.E. 98, 140, 160 & 172) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The parties may refile their motions after Plaintiff supplements the record with lumbar spine MRI results on or before
September 1, 2009. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 30th day of July, 2009.
URSULA UNGARO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: Counsel of Record
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?