Hillesheim v. Buzz Salons, LLC
Filing
44
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 37 Report and Recommendation (Written Opinion) The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung dated June 19, 2017 37 . Defendant's Amended Motion to Dismiss 18 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. Signed by Judge Michael J. Davis on 7/25/17. (KMW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
ZACH HILLESHEIM,
Plaintiff,
v.
BUZZ SALONS, LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER
Civil File No. 16‐2225 (MJD/TNL)
Padraigin Browne, Browne Law LLC, Counsel for Plaintiff.
Alyssa Kathryn Thibert Nelson and Kevin A. Velasquez, Blethen, Gage &
Krause, PLLP, Counsel for Defendant.
The above‐entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung dated June
19, 2017. Defendant Buzz Salons, LLC, filed objections to the Report and
Recommendation.
Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review upon the
record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based upon that review, the
Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
1
Judge Leung dated June 19, 2017. The Court has fully considered Defendant’s
objections and concludes that sanctions are not appropriate in this case.
Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung dated June 19, 2017 [Docket No. 37].
2. Defendant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 18] is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: this
matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: July 25, 2017
s/Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
United States District Court
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?