Sego v. McFadden et al
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Report and Recommendation entered on 2/10/09 30 is incorporated by reference and adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment 10 is DENIED, Plaintiff's Motion for Joinder of Pa rties 28 is DENIED, Defendant McFadden's Motion to Dismiss 16 is GRANTED. The case is dismissed as to Defendant McFadden, Defendant Dickenson's Motion for Summary Judgment 11 is STAYED, The Plaintiff's claims in the Complaint as against Defendant Dickenson and this Case is STAYED as to Defendant Dickenson pending resolution of the collateral state court proceeding. The parties are directed to notify the Court within ten days of resolution of the state court proceeding as to whether this case should be reinstated. This case is administratively terminated. 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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
STEVEN SEGO, Plaintiff, vs. PATRICK MCFADDEN and BRIAN DICKENSON, Defendants.
) ) ) Case No. CV08-187-N-EJL ) ) ORDER ON REPORT ) AND RECOMMENDATION ) ) ) ) )
On February 10, 2009, United States Magistrate Judge Larry M. Boyle issued a Report and Recommendation as to the pending motions in the above entitled matter. 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'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. Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Plaintiff filed objections to the report and recommendation. The objections do not raise any new arguments or authority to dispute the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Instead, the Plaintiff disagrees with the conclusions in the recommendation. The Court has reviewed the report and recommendation, the parties' briefing on the motions, briefing, and the entire record in these matters. Based upon this review, the Court finds the report and recommendation has correctly decided the motions.
ORDER - Page 1
ORDER Having conducted a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation, this Court finds that Magistrate Judge Boyle'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 Magistrate Judge Boyle, and this Court being fully advised in the premises, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation entered on February 10, 2009, (Dkt. No. 30), should be, and is hereby, INCORPORATED by reference and ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgement (Dkt. No. 10) is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion for Joinder of Parties (Dkt. No. 28) is DENIED. Defendant McFadden's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 16) is GRANTED. The case is dismissed as to Defendant McFadden. Defendant Dickenson's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 11) is STAYED. The Plaintiff's claims in the Complaint as against Defendant Dickenson and this Case is STAYED as to Defendant Dickenson pending resolution of the collateral state court proceeding. The parties are directed to notify the Court within ten days of resolution of the state court proceeding by filing the appropriate written motion and proposed order with the Court as to whether this case should be reinstated. The Clerk of the Court is directed to ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATE this case with the Court reserving jurisdiction over the same until such time as the parties file the notice as directed above. DATED: March 6, 2009
Honorable Edward J. Lodge U. S. District Judge
ORDER - Page 2
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?