Hickey v. Webb's Refreshments, Inc.
Filing
40
ORDER: The Report and Recommendations 30 is Accepted and Approved. Defendant's Second Motion to Dismiss 28 is Granted. The Clerk of the Court shall enter Final Judgment in a separate document in accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Chief Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 5/27/15. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
VIRGIL HICKEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
WEBB’S REFRESHMENTS, INC.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No. 3:13-cv-0937
Judge Sharp
ORDER
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of the Magistrate
Judge (Docket No. 30), recommending that Defendant’s “Second Motion to Dismiss” (Docket
No. 28), be granted and that this action be dismissed with prejudice. The R & R does not,
however, recommend an award of attorney fees and expenses. Plaintiff failed to file a Response
to the Second Motion to Dismiss, and no objections were made to the R & R.
Where no objections are made to the R & R, “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or
modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.” FED R. CIV. P. 72(b).
Having conducted a de novo review in accordance with Rule 72, the Court will accept the
disposition set forth in the R & R. Accordingly, the Court rules as follows:
(1) The R & R (Docket No. 30) is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED;
(2) Defendant’s Second Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 28) is GRANTED.
1
The Clerk of the Court shall enter Final Judgment in a separate document in accordance
with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
It is SO ORDERED.
_________________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
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?