Coardes v. Express Employment Professionals et al
ORDER RULING ON 26 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION It is ordered that plaintiff's motion to extend time to serve summons and complaint [1st part of Doc. #17] is granted; plaintiffs motion to amend [2nd part of Doc. #17] is d enied; and defendants' motions to dismiss [Docs. #6 and #10] are denied as moot. It is further ordered that the caption be amended to reflect the proper name of Defendant Express as Express Services, Inc. Signed by Honorable Patrick Michael Duffy on 06/19/2017. (egra, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Express Employment Professionals, and
Key Logistics Solutions, LLC,
This matter is before the court upon the report and recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge made in accordance with Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge's
report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed to
the magistrate judge’s report.
A review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge's report accurately summarizes this
case and the applicable law. For the reasons articulated by the magistrate judge, it is ordered that
plaintiff’s motion to extend time to serve summons and complaint [1st part of Doc. #17] is granted;
plaintiff’s motion to amend [2nd part of Doc. #17] is denied; and defendants’ motions to dismiss [Docs.
#6 and #10] are denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption be amended to reflect the proper name of
Defendant Express as “Express Services, Inc.”
ORDERED, that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is adopted as the order of
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 19, 2017
Charleston, South Carolina
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?