Summary
overlooking movant's failure to include a statement of undisputed facts as required by the local rules and declining to deny a motion for summary judgment on that basis
Summary of this case from Browning v. Peters (In re Peters)Opinion
15-CV-309-A
05-31-2017
DECISION AND ORDER
The above-referenced case was referred to Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) for the conduct of pretrial proceedings. On May 4, 2017, Magistrate Judge McCarthy filed a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 64), recommending that pro se defendant John Bartolomei's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 51) be granted in part, dismissing plaintiff's state law conspiracy claim against him, but otherwise denied, without prejudice.
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record in this case, and no objections having been timely filed, it is hereby
ORDERED, that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge McCarthy's Report and Recommendation, pro se defendant John Bartolomei's motion for summary judgment is granted in part, dismissing plaintiff's state law conspiracy claim against the defendant, but is otherwise denied, without prejudice. The case is remains referred to Magistrate Judge McCarthy for further proceedings consistent to the Court's prior Text Order Referring Case at Dkt. No. 8.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/_________
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Dated: May 31, 2017