Baylets-Holsinger v. The Pennsylvania State University

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson's 16 Report and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety; granting 14 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; granting 17 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend; case is remanded to Magistrate Judge Carlson for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 6/7/18. (lg)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 4:18-CV-00060 ANTOINETTE A. BAYLETSHOLSINGER, (Judge Brann) Plaintiff. (Magistrate Judge Carlson) v. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant. ORDER JUNE 7, 2018 1. Plaintiff initiated the above-captioned action by filing her Complaint on January 9, 2018. ECF No. 1. 2. Defendant moved to dismiss that complaint on March 19, 2018. ECF No. 14. 3. In a May 2, 2018 Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson recommended granting Defendant’s motion. ECF No. 16. 4. No objections were filed to that Report and Recommendation. 5. This Court has reviewed that Report and Recommendation, and finds “no clear error on the face of the record.”1 1 Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 702 F. Supp. 2d 465, 469 (M.D. Pa. 2010). 6. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: a. Magistrate Judge Carlson’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 16, is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY; b. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 14, is GRANTED; c. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint, ECF No. 17, is GRANTED;2 and d. This case is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Carlson for further proceedings. BY THE COURT: s/ Matthew W. Brann Matthew W. Brann United States District Judge 2 Plaintiff attached an Amended Complaint to this motion. Plaintiff is advised, however, to file that document as a separate docket entry on ECF.

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?