From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Booze v. Wetzel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Dec 11, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:CV-12-1307 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 11, 2012)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:CV-12-1307

12-11-2012

JOSHUA BOOZE Plaintiff v. JOHN WETZEL, et al. Defendants


(CHIEF JUDGE KANE)

(Magistrate Judge Carlson)


ORDER

Before the Court in the captioned action is a November 16, 2012 report of the Magistrate Judge. No timely objections have been filed.

Accordingly, upon review of the record and the applicable law, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carlson.

2) Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 23) is DENIED.

3) The case is referred to Magistrate Judge Schwab for further proceedings.

_______________

YVETTE KANE, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Middle District of Pennsylvania


Summaries of

Booze v. Wetzel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Dec 11, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:CV-12-1307 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 11, 2012)
Case details for

Booze v. Wetzel

Case Details

Full title:JOSHUA BOOZE Plaintiff v. JOHN WETZEL, et al. Defendants

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Dec 11, 2012

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:CV-12-1307 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 11, 2012)

Citing Cases

York v. United States

This failure to file a brief has consequences for York since we are entitled to deem the plaintiff to have…

Traylor v. McCarthy

See, e.g., Salkeld v. Tennis, 248 F. App'x 341 (3d Cir.2007) (affirming dismissal of motion under Local Rule…