From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hall v. Blake

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Dec 4, 2009
Case No. 3:09-cv-244-KRG-KAP (W.D. Pa. Dec. 4, 2009)

Opinion

Case No. 3:09-cv-244-KRG-KAP.

December 4, 2009


MEMORANDUM ORDER


The plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment, docket no. 7, was referred to Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto for proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation on October 30, 2009, docket no. 8, recommending that the motion be denied.

The plaintiff was notified that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), he had ten days to serve and file written objections to the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff filed a premature notice of appeal, docket no. 9, and objections, docket no. 10, which contain argument but no allegations of fact justifying reconsideration of the judgment in this matter.

Upon de novo review of the record of this matter, the Report and Recommendation, and the objections thereto, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 4th day of December 2009, it is

ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment, docket no. 7, is denied.


Summaries of

Hall v. Blake

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Dec 4, 2009
Case No. 3:09-cv-244-KRG-KAP (W.D. Pa. Dec. 4, 2009)
Case details for

Hall v. Blake

Case Details

Full title:RONALD HALL, Plaintiff v. FRAZIER BLAKE, FB UNIT MANAGER, S.C.I…

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Dec 4, 2009

Citations

Case No. 3:09-cv-244-KRG-KAP (W.D. Pa. Dec. 4, 2009)