From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

FINN v. SWISHER INTERNATIONAL, INC.

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
Jul 5, 2007
CIVIL NO. 3:04cv484 (W.D.N.C. Jul. 5, 2007)

Opinion

CIVIL NO. 3:04cv484.

July 5, 2007


ORDER


This matter is before the Court on Defendant Swisher Hygiene Franchise Corporation's Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment and Defendant Swisher International, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 7) and supporting memoranda. In his Memorandum and Recommendation ("M R") (Doc. No. 25), the magistrate judge recommends the undersigned grant the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The plaintiff timely filed objections to the M R, rendering this Court's standard of review de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (a party may file specific, written objections to an M R within ten days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).

The Magistrate Judge treated the motions of both defendants as summary judgment motions because the parties submitted evidence outside the Complaint.

After its de novo review, the Court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute that is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata from further proceedings, as sufficiently set forth in the magistrate judge's M R. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, that the defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 7) be GRANTED and that the Magistrate's M R (Doc. No. 25) be adopted as the Memorandum for the instant Order.


Summaries of

FINN v. SWISHER INTERNATIONAL, INC.

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
Jul 5, 2007
CIVIL NO. 3:04cv484 (W.D.N.C. Jul. 5, 2007)
Case details for

FINN v. SWISHER INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Case Details

Full title:BARBARA S. FINN, Plaintiff, v. SWISHER INTERNATIONAL, INC. and SWISHER…

Court:United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division

Date published: Jul 5, 2007

Citations

CIVIL NO. 3:04cv484 (W.D.N.C. Jul. 5, 2007)

Citing Cases

Warren v. PSA Airlines Inc.

, courts in this Circuit recognize that a parent company and its subsidiary are in privity for the purposes…