Galloway et al v. Up Dish Services, LLC
ORDER accepting 13 Memorandum and Recommendations; granting in part and denying in part Deft's 7 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, granting with respect to Pltfs' claim for detrimental reliance, and dismissing this claim with prejudice; and denying with respect to Pltfs' claim for breach of contract. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 9/15/2017. (ejb)
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00199-MR-DLH
TONY GALLOWAY and BRIDGETTE
UP DISH SERVICES, LLC,
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss [Doc. 7] and the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and
Recommendation [Doc. 13] 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 Defendant’s motion and to submit a
recommendation for its disposition.
On August 30, 2017, 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. 13]. 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 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be granted in part
and denied in part.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Memorandum and
Recommendation [Doc. 13] is ACCEPTED, and the Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss [Doc. 7] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically,
the Motion is GRANTED with respect to the Plaintiffs’ claim for detrimental
reliance, and this claim is therefore DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The
Motion is DENIED with respect to the Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of contract.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: September 15, 2017
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?