Brown v. Ross
This text of Brown v. Ross (Brown v. Ross) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JAMES BROWN, : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 10-1791 (RC) : v. : Re Documents No.: 29, 36 : JASON ROSS et al., : : Defendants. :
MEMORANDUM ORDER
This court referred the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss to Magistrate Judge
Facciola, who issued a Report and Recommendation on July 6, 2012. The Report and
Recommendation recommended that the defendants’ motion be granted and that the plaintiff be
given leave to amend. The Report further warned that any failure to file timely objections would
result in a waiver of the right to appeal any order of this court adopting the Report. See LCvR
72.3(b) (allowing a party to file a written objection within 14 days after being served with the
report and recommendation). No objections have been received, and all objections are thus
deemed waived. Elec. Transaction Sys. Corp. v. Prodigy Partners Ltd., 2009 WL 3273920, at
*1 (D.D.C. Oct. 9, 2009). Accordingly, it is this 6th day of August, 2012, hereby
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Facciola’s Report and Recommendation is adopted in
full; it is further
ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED; and it is
ORDERED that the plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file a second amended complaint.
SO ORDERED.
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS United States District Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Brown v. Ross, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-ross-dcd-2012.