Direct Line Corporation v. Carrington et al

Filing 61

ORDER: On December 6, 2010, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation 53 , to which no timely objections have been filed. The Report and Recommendation is therefore ACCEPTED and made the findings of facts and conclusions of law of this court. For the reasons expressed therein, it is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiff's Motion for Relief Based Upon Defendants Failure to Comply with a Court Order 44 is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 2/25/2011. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(hb)

Direct Line Corporation v. Carrington et al

Doc. 61

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION DIRECT LINE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL L. CARRINGTON and JOHN DOE(S), Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER On December 6, 2010, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 53), to which no timely objections have been filed. The Report and Recommendation is therefore ACCEPTED and made the findings of facts and conclusions of law of this court. For the reasons expressed therein, it is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiff's "Motion for Relief Based Upon Defendant's Failure to Comply with a Court Order" (Docket No. 44) is DENIED. It is so ORDERED. Enter this 25th day of February 2011.

Civil No. 3:10-0423 Judge Trauger Magistrate Judge Knowles

________________________________ ALETA A. TRAUGER U.S. District Judge

Dockets.Justia.com