Crossley v. United States Postal Service

Filing 13

ORDER accepting the 12 Memorandum and Recommendations; denying Deft's 5 Motion to Dismiss with respect to Pltf's claim for the issuance of an accurate SF-50 form; and granting Deft's 5 Motion to Dismiss with respect to all other claims asserted in the Complaint. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 10/23/15. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(ejb)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:15-cv-00165-MR-DLH

DAVID B. CROSSLEY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, )
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss [Doc. 5] and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and
Recommendation [Doc. 12] regarding the disposition of that motion.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and the standing Orders of Designation
of this Court, the Honorable Dennis L. Howell, United States Magistrate
Judge, was designated to consider the motion to dismiss and to submit a
recommendation for its disposition.
On September 30, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Memorandum
and Recommendation in this case containing conclusions of law in support
of a recommendation regarding the Defendant’s motion. [Doc. 12]. The
parties were advised that any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s

Memorandum and Recommendation were to be filed in writing within
fourteen (14) days of service. The period within which to file objections has
expired,

and

no

written

objections

to

the

Memorandum

and

Recommendation have been filed.
After a careful review of the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, the
Court finds that the proposed conclusions of law are consistent with current
case law. Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation that the motion to dismiss should be granted in part and
denied in part.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Memorandum and
Recommendation [Doc. 12] is ACCEPTED, and the Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss [Doc. 5] is DENIED with respect to the Plaintiff’s claim for the
issuance of an accurate SF-50 form. The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
[Doc. 5] is GRANTED with respect to all other claims asserted in the
Complaint.
Signed: October 23, 2015

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2