From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. JNH Invs., Inc.

United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION
Jul 27, 2017
Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-675 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 27, 2017)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-675

07-27-2017

DANIEL S. BROWN v. JNH INVESTMENTS, INC., J AND H INVESTMENTS GROUP, LLC, JOHN ALSEINH, HAITHAM FARAJ


(Judge Mazzant/Judge Nowak) MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this matter having been heretofore referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On July 7, 2017, the report of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. #68) was entered containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations that Defendants JNH Investments, Inc., J and H Investments Group, LLC, John Alsenih, and Haitham Faraj's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #28) be denied.

Having received the report of the Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto having been timely filed, the Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts the Magistrate Judge's report as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

It is, therefore, ORDERED that Defendants JNH Investments, Inc., J and H Investments Group, LLC, John Alsenih, and Haitham Faraj's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #28) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this 27th day of July, 2017.

/s/_________

AMOS L. MAZZANT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Brown v. JNH Invs., Inc.

United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION
Jul 27, 2017
Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-675 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 27, 2017)
Case details for

Brown v. JNH Invs., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL S. BROWN v. JNH INVESTMENTS, INC., J AND H INVESTMENTS GROUP, LLC…

Court:United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

Date published: Jul 27, 2017

Citations

Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-675 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 27, 2017)

Citing Cases

United Health Prods., Inc. v. Animal Health Int'l, Inc.

Further, the screenshots are not self-authenticating documents under Federal Rule of Evidence 902. See Moore…