Watkins v. Baum et al

Filing 66

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 61 Objections to Report and Recommendation filed by Jermaine Devon Watkins; granting 48 Defendant Ellen's Motion for Summary Judgment and Dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice; denying 64 Plaintiff's Motion for Default against Defendant Khurshid. Signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton. (DN) Modified on 10/12/2012 (DN). (cc to pltf)

Download PDF
1 HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 8 JERMAINE DEVON WATKINS, CASE NO. C11-5494RBL/KLS 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 12 13 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT [Dkt. #s 60 and 64] CATHERINE BAUM, ELIZABETH G. SUITER, MICHAEL R. ELLEN, MIKE WATKINS, STEVE HAMMOND, MUHAMMAD A. KHURSHID, and TAMARA J. ROWDEN, 14 15 Defendants. 16 THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate 17 Judge Karen Strombom [Dkt. #60], recommending that the Court GRANT Defendant Michael 18 Ellen’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. #48] and DISMISS the Plaintiff’s Complaint with 19 prejudice The Court has reviewed the record, the Report, and the Plaintiff’s Objections to it. 20 [Dkt. #61]. 21 The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [Dkt. #60]. 22 Defendant Ellen’s Motion is GRANTED, and the Plaintiff’s claims against Michael Ellen are 23 DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 24 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT - 1 1 Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff Watkins’ Motion for Default against Defendant 2 Khurshid [Dkt. #64]. There is no evidence before the Court that Kuhrshid has been served. The 3 Motion for Default is DENIED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated this 12th day of October, 2012. 7 A 8 Ronald B. Leighton United States District Judge 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 [DKT. #S 60 AND 64] - 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?