Balboa v. Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems, Inc. et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Hence the R & R, (Docket No. 32), is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED and Plaintiff's "Motion for Temporary Injunction with Asset Freeze, Appointment of Temporary Receiver," (Docket No. 6), is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 1/6/2017. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(jw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
CAREY JAMES BALBOA,
BELL ATLANTIC MOBILE SYSTEMS,
INC., et al.,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00757
Magistrate Judge Frensley
Plaintiff Carey Balboa (“Balboa”) filed this action against Defendants Bell Atlantic
Mobile Systems, Inc. (“Bell Atlantic”) and Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC (“Pinnacle”) in state
court alleging that Defendants Bell Atlantic and Pinnacle engaged in “wrongful, tortuous [sic],
and fraudulent acts and omissions.” (Docket No. 1-2, Compl. at 1, ¶ 1). Defendants removed
the suit to this Court, (Docket No. 1), and the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand,
(Docket No. 29).
Plaintiff has filed a “Motion for Temporary Injunction with Asset Freeze, Appointment
of Temporary Receiver,” (Docket No. 6), to which Defendant Pinnacle has filed a Response in
Opposition, (Docket No. 13). In that motion, Plaintiff asks the Court, inter alia, to “freeze
Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC’s accounts and assets globally and restrict defendant from
withdrawing or moving assets to avoid payment upon the court’s decision[,]” and to appoint a
temporary receiver “to obviate the threat of destruction of business records, the liquidation of
assets, and other non-compliance with any temporary injunction issued[.]” (Docket No. 6 at 2).
Magistrate Judge Frensley has issued a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”), (Docket
No. 32), in which he recommends that Plaintiff’s motion be denied. In that R & R, the Court
advised Plaintiff that he needed to file any objections within fourteen days of service. Plaintiff
has filed no objections, presumably, in part, because this Court’s certified mail to Plaintiff
containing the R & R was returned as undeliverable. Given that it is Plaintiff’s responsibility to
keep the Court apprised of updated contact information, the Court views Plaintiff as having filed
no objections even if Plaintiff would have done so had he received the R & R via certified mail.
Having considered the matter as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, the Court agrees with the
Hence the R & R, (Docket No. 32), is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED and
Plaintiff’s “Motion for Temporary Injunction with Asset Freeze, Appointment of Temporary
Receiver,” (Docket No. 6), is DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?