CenturyLink of Florida, Inc. v. AT&T Corp.

D. Colorado

CenturyLink of Florida, Inc. v. AT&T Corp.

DecidedJune 9, 2023

Docket1:22-cv-02206

StatusUnknown

This text of CenturyLink of Florida, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. (CenturyLink of Florida, Inc. v. AT&T Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

CenturyLink of Florida, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., (D. Colo. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Raymond P. Moore Civil Action No. 22-cv-02206-RM-SP CENTURYLINK OF FLORIDA, INC. d/b/a CenturyLink, et al., Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants, v. AT&T CORP., et al., Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs.

ORDER

Before the Court is the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Susan Prose (ECF No. 85) to deny without prejudice Defendants’ Motion to Transfer (ECF No. 34) in light of the parties’ Notice of Settlement (ECF No. 82). The Recommendation advised that specific written objections were due within fourteen days after being served a copy of the Recommendation, and none has been filed. See Summers v. Utah, 927 F.3d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (“In the absence of a timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s report under any standard it deems appropriate.”). Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Recommendation (ECF No. 85), and the Motion to Transfer (ECF No. 34) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DATED this 9th day of June, 2023. BY THE COURT:

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 DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Raymond P. Moore Civil Action No. 22-cv-02206-RM-SP CENTURYLINK OF FLORIDA, INC. d/b/a CenturyLink, et al., Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants, v. AT&T CORP., et al., Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs.

ORDER

Before the Court is the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Susan Prose (ECF No. 85) to deny without prejudice Defendants’ Motion to Transfer (ECF No. 34) in light of the parties’ Notice of Settlement (ECF No. 82). The Recommendation advised that specific written objections were due within fourteen days after being served a copy of the Recommendation, and none has been filed. See Summers v. Utah, 927 F.3d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (“In the absence of a timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s report under any standard it deems appropriate.”). Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Recommendation (ECF No. 85), and the Motion to Transfer (ECF No. 34) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DATED this 9th day of June, 2023. BY THE COURT:

United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

CenturyLink of Florida, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/centurylink-of-florida-inc-v-att-corp-cod-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack