Wicklund v. Page et al

Filing 64

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS the Report and Recommendation entered on May 25, 2011, (Dkt. 56 ), should be, and is hereby, INCORPORATED by reference and ADOPTED in its entirety. Defendant James F. Page's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 41 ) is DENIED. Plaintiff Mark S. Wicklund shall file an amended complaint by 8/9/11. The parties may engage in limited discovery in this matter as discussed in the Report and Recommendation until on or before 9/12/11. Any additional dispositive motions shall be filed by 10/12/11. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

MARK STEPHEN WICKLUND,
Case No. 1:09-CV-00671-EJL-CWD
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

v.
JAMES F. PAGE, an individual, dba
ASCERTAIN POLYGRAPH
SERVICES, dba TREASURE VALLEY
POLYGRAPH, and IDAHO
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendants.

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.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 1

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.
ORDER
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.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 2

4)

Any additional dispositive motions shall be filed on or before October 12,
2011.
DATED: July 25, 2011

Honorable Edward J. Lodge
U. S. District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 3