Baez v. Potamkin Hyundai, Inc.

Eleventh Circuit

Baez v. Potamkin Hyundai, Inc.

458 F. App'x 827

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit·Decided February 16, 2012·No. No. 11-13568·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The rulings of the District Court in granting the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment; in denying the Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; and in dismissing the Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint are affirmed for the reasons set forth in the June 14, 2011 Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, which was adopted by the District Court on July 11, 2011.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The rulings of the District Court in granting the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment; in denying the Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; and in dismissing the Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint are affirmed for the reasons set forth in the June 14, 2011 Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, which was adopted by the District Court on July 11, 2011.

AFFIRMED.

Baez v. Potamkin Hyundai, Inc., 458 F. App'x 827 (11th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

458 F. App'x 827 (Baez v. Potamkin Hyundai, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related