BERGAL v. KUTA et al
Filing
29
MEMORANDUM ORDER - it is Ordered that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment at ECF no. 21 is denied as recommended in the Report and Recommendation at ECF no. 28 , which is adopted as the opinion of the Court. The matter remains with the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, and as more fully stated in said Memorandum Order. Signed by Judge Kim R. Gibson on 3/25/2019. (dlg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GOKHAN BERGAL,
Plaintiff
Case No. 3:17-cv-67-KRG-KAP
V.
S.M. KUTA, et al.,
Defendants
Memorandum Order
This matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Keith
A.
Pesto
for
pretrial
proceedings
in
accordance
with
the
Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C.§ 636 and Local Civil Rule 72.
The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation
on
January
31,
2019
at
ECF
no.
28,
recommending
that
the
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment at ECF no. 21 be denied.
The parties were notified that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§
636 (b) (1), they had fourteen days to file written objections to the
Report and Recommendation. No objections have been filed and the
time to do so has expired.
After review of the record of this matter and the Report
and Recommendation under the "reasoned consideration" standard, see
EEOC v.
City of
Long Branch,
866
F.3d
93,
100
(3d Cir.2017)
(standard of review when no timely and specific objections are
filed),
the following order is entered:
AND NOW, this
ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment at
ECF
no.
21
is
denied
as
recommended
in
the
Report
and
Recommendation at ECF no. 28, which is adopted as the opinion of
the
Court.
The matter remains
with the Magistrate Judge
further proceedings.
BY THE COURT:
KIM R. GIBSON,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Notice to counsel of record by ECF and by U.S. Mail to:
Gokhan Bergal
3-C Hobart Avenue
Woodland Park, NJ 07424
2
for
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?