NAIK v. BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP
ORDER ADOPTING 132 Report and Recommendations ***CIVIL CASE TERMINATED. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 1/30/2017. (seb)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Civil Action No. 14-03097-SDW-SCM
BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP,
January 30, 2017
WIGENTON, District Judge.
Before this Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) entered on January 12,
2017, by Magistrate Judge Leda D. Wettre (“Judge Wettre”), recommending that Defendant
Boston Consulting Group’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(f),
37(b)(2)(A), and 41(b); (Dkt. No. 125); be denied. (Dkt. No. 132.) Plaintiff Urvi Naik filed a letter
in this matter on January 27, 2017, (Dkt. No. 134), which this Court considers an objection to the
This Court has reviewed the reasons set forth by Judge Wettre in the R&R and the other
documents in this matter along with Plaintiff’s objection. Based on the foregoing, and for good
cause shown, it is hereby
ORDERED that the R&R of Judge Wettre is ADOPTED as the conclusions of law of this
This Court notes that it considers Plaintiff’s letter despite the fact that it was not timely filed. In addition, to the
extent an attachment to Plaintiff’s letter requests an extension of time to file an objection, that request is moot in light
of this Court’s consideration of Plaintiff’s letter. Moreover, even if the extension request were not moot, there is no
proper basis on which to grant Plaintiff’s request for an indefinite extension of time to file an objection. Plaintiff’s
failure to comply with Court Orders and her dilatory tactics are the basis on which dismissal is appropriate in the first
s/ Susan D. Wigenton
SUSAN D. WIGENTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Leda D. Wettre, U.S.M.J.
place. Her request for an indefinite extension appears to be another attempt to unreasonably delay the proceedings in
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?