Jones v. University of Memphis et al
Filing
240
ORDER denying 152 Motion; adopting 212 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 10/19/16. (McCalla, Jon)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
GINA JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS, and
TENNESSEE BOARD OF REGENTS,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 15-cv-02148-JPM-cgc
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed by
Magistrate Judge Claxton on September 23, 2016.
(ECF No. 212.)
In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge
recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Plaintiff’s First Set
of Requests for Admissions Admitted (ECF No. 152) be denied and
that Defendant University of Memphis be ordered to amend its
responses to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 36(a)(4) with respect to Requests for Admissions Nos.
3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14.
(Id. at 4.)
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2),
“[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the
recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific
written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
No objections to
the Report and Recommendation have been filed, and the time for
filing objections expired on October 7, 2016.
See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2), 6(d), 72(b)(2).
“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record in order to accept the recommendation.”
72(b) advisory committee notes.
Fed. R. Civ. P.
On clear-error review of the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court hereby
ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 212) in its
entirety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the Report and Recommendation,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for
Admissions Admitted Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 36 (ECF No. 152), filed
August 15, 2016, is DENIED.
Defendant University of Memphis is
further ordered to amend the answers it submitted to Plaintiff
on May 24, 2016 in response to Requests for Admissions Nos. 3,
7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 to meet the requirements of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(4).
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 19th day of October, 2016.
/s/ Jon P. McCalla
JON P. McCALLA
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?