Overbay v. McDonald's Corporation et al (TV3)
Filing
24
ORDER in which the Court ACCEPTS IN WHOLE the R&R [Doc. 23]. Defendants Quinton and Idom's Motion to Dismiss and/or to Strike [Doc. 12] is hereby DENIED and plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time to Serve Remaining Defendants [Doc. 16] is GRANTED. Plaintiff has an additional thirty (30) days from the entry of this order to effect service of process. Signed by Chief District Judge Thomas A Varlan on April 13, 2017. (AYB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
SABRINA ELAINE OVERBAY,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN RAY ISRAEL, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No.:
2:16-CV-337-TAV-MCLC
ORDER
This civil matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation entered
by United States Magistrate Judge Clifton L. Corker, on March 24, 2017 (the “R&R”)
[Doc. 23]. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Corker recommends that defendants Michael
Carroll Quinton and William Larry Idom’s Motion to Dismiss and/or to Strike [Doc. 12]
be denied and plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to Serve Remaining Defendants [Doc.
16] be granted, giving plaintiff an additional thirty days to effect service of process.
There have been no timely objections to the R&R, and enough time has passed since the
filing of the R&R to treat any objections as having been waived. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.
After a careful review of the matter, the Court is in agreement with Magistrate
Judge Corker’s recommendations, which the Court adopts and incorporates into its
ruling. As such, the Court ACCEPTS IN WHOLE the R&R [Doc. 23]. Defendants
Quinton and Idom’s Motion to Dismiss and/or to Strike [Doc. 12] is hereby DENIED
and plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to Serve Remaining Defendants [Doc. 16] is
GRANTED. Plaintiff has an additional thirty (30) days from the entry of this order to
effect service of process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Thomas A. Varlan
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?