Brown v. Monroy

M.D. Pennsylvania

Brown v. Monroy

DecidedApril 25, 2024

Docket1:22-cv-01401

StatusUnknown

This text of Brown v. Monroy (Brown v. Monroy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. Monroy, (M.D. Pa. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA EVAN BROWN, : Civil No. 1:22-cv-1401 : Plaintiff, : : (Judge Sylvia H. Rambo) v. : : JORDAN THOMAS, et al., : : Defendants. : O R D E R AND NOW, this 25th day of April, 2024, upon consideration of Magistrate Judge Carlson’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 29) recommending that Defendants Tingle and Thomas’s motion to dismiss be granted, and noting that the parties have not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation and the time for doing so has passed, and the court having satisfied itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 702 F. Supp. 2d 465, 469 (M.D. Pa. 2010) (explaining that judges should review dispositive legal issues raised by the report for clear error), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 29) is ADOPTED; 2) The motion to dismiss (Doc. 27) the complaint is GRANTED; 3) Defendants Thomas and Tingle are terminated from this action; and 4) This matter is remanded to the magistrate judge. s/Sylvia H. Rambo SYLVIA H. RAMBO United States District Judge

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA EVAN BROWN, : Civil No. 1:22-cv-1401 : Plaintiff, : : (Judge Sylvia H. Rambo) v. : : JORDAN THOMAS, et al., : : Defendants. : O R D E R AND NOW, this 25th day of April, 2024, upon consideration of Magistrate Judge Carlson’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 29) recommending that Defendants Tingle and Thomas’s motion to dismiss be granted, and noting that the parties have not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation and the time for doing so has passed, and the court having satisfied itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 702 F. Supp. 2d 465, 469 (M.D. Pa. 2010) (explaining that judges should review dispositive legal issues raised by the report for clear error), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 29) is ADOPTED; 2) The motion to dismiss (Doc. 27) the complaint is GRANTED; 3) Defendants Thomas and Tingle are terminated from this action; and 4) This matter is remanded to the magistrate judge. s/Sylvia H. Rambo SYLVIA H. RAMBO United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Brown v. Monroy, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-monroy-pamd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack