From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fenner v. City of Durham

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Mar 21, 2013
1:10cv383 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 21, 2013)

Opinion

1:10cv383

03-21-2013

WALDO FENNER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF DURHAM/BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, Defendant.


ORDER

On February 26, 2013, the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation was filed, and notice was served on the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Plaintiff filed objections within the time permitted by section 636. (Doc. 26.)

The court has reviewed those portions of the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which Plaintiff has objected and made a de novo determination. The court's review is in accord with the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation, which is therefore adopted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 18) is GRANTED and that this action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 11) be DISMISSED as MOOT.

A Judgment dismissing this action will be entered contemporaneously with this Order.

Thomas D. Schroeder

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Fenner v. City of Durham

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Mar 21, 2013
1:10cv383 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 21, 2013)
Case details for

Fenner v. City of Durham

Case Details

Full title:WALDO FENNER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF DURHAM/BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Date published: Mar 21, 2013

Citations

1:10cv383 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 21, 2013)

Citing Cases

Fenner v. City of Durham

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by…