Wright v. Smith et al

Filing 59

ORDER ADOPTING 41 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, denying 27 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Abingdon Surgical Associates, P.C., denying 28 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed by Kandie R. Wright. Signed by Judge Glen M. Williams on 7/24/09. (eps)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ABINGDON DIVISION KANDIE R. WRIGHT, Plaintiff , v. DAVID H. SMITH, M.D., and ABINGDON SURGICAL ASSOCIATES, P.C., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 1:08cv00052 ORDER By: GLEN M. WILLIAMS SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This case is currently before the court on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. In particular, the defendant, Abingdon Surgical Associates, P.C., filed a Motion For Summary Judgment, (Docket Item No. 27), on May 15, 2009, and the plaintiff filed a Motion For Partial Summary Judgment, (Docket Item No. 28), on May 18, 2009. The case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), to the Honorable Pamela Meade Sargent, United States Magistrate Judge. On June 26, 2009, the Magistrate Judge filed a report, (Docket Item No. 41), ("the Report"), recommending that the motions be denied. Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report were timely filed by the plaintiff on July 6, 2009, (Docket Item No. 45), and by the defendant on July 10, 2009, (Docket Item No. 46). Upon review of the objections to the Report, and all other relevant filings, the court is of the opinion that the Magistrate Judge's report should be ACCEPTED. For the reasons detailed in the Magistrate Judge's Report, both the plaintiff's Motion For Partial Summary Judgment and the defendants' Motion For Summary -1- Judgment are hereby DENIED. The Clerk is directed to enter this Order and send copies to all counsel of record. ENTER: This 24th day of July 2009. /s/ Glen M. Williams SENIOR 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?