Coe v. IHOP Restaurants, LLC et al

Filing 17

ORDER - This matter comes before the court on defendant, CFRA, LLC's, Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) filed on August 19, 2016. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge by Order of September 13, 2016, (ECF No. 14), pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1) (B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, if necessary, and to submit to the undersigned proposed findings of fact, if applicable, and recommenda tions for the disposition of the matter. The United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 16) was filed on December 22, 2016. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the court grant defendant's Motion to Dismiss, but th at the dismissal be without prejudice as to Claims 1, 2, and 5 of plaintiff's Complaint. The court does hereby adopt and approve in full the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge filed December 22, 2016. Accordingly, defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED as to Count 3, and plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Counts 1, 2, and 5. Plaintiff is GRA NTED leave to amend Counts 1 and 5 of his Complaint. Said Amended Complaint shall be filed within twenty (20) days of entry of this Order. The Clerk shall forward a copy of this Order to all parties of record. Copies distributed as directed. Signed by Chief District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith on 1/13/2016. (cchr)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division BRETT N. COE, Plaintiff, V. Case No. 2;16cv365 IHOP RESTAURANTS, LLC,^ a foreign limited liability company, and CFRA, LLC, a foreign limited liability company. Defendants. ORDER This matter comes before the court on defendant, CFRA, Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) filed on August 19, 2016. LLC's, The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge by Order of September 13, 2016, (ECF No. 14), pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. ยง 636 (b) (1) (B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) , to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, if necessary, and to submit to the iindersigned proposed findings of fact, if applicable, and recommendations for the disposition of the matter. The United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 16) was filed on December 22, 2016. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the court grant defendant's Motion to Dismiss, but ^ Plaintiff volxmtarily dismissed IHOP Restaurants, LLC, on August 19, 2016. (ECF No. 9). that the dismissal be without prejudice as to Claims 1, 2, and 5 of plaintiff's Complaint. By copy of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the parties were advised of their right objections thereto. to file written The court has received no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and the time for filing same has expired. The court does hereby adopt and approve in full the recommendations findings and set forth in the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge filed December 22, 2016. Accordingly, defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED as to Count 3, and plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Counts 1, 2, and 5.^ Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to amend Counts 1 and 5 of his Complaint.^ Said Amended Complaint shall be filed within twenty (20) days of entry of this Order. The Clerk shall forward a copy of this Order to all parties of record. I t i s so ORDERED. -Wr /S/ Rebecca Beach Smith January 13, 2017 ^ Plaintiff withdrew Count 4. ChiefJudge (ECF No. 12). ^ Counts 1 and 2 are not separate claims and should be asserted in an Amended Complaint as one claim, alleging two alternate bases of how plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability.

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?