Opinion
CASE NO.: 1:09-CV-136 (WLS).
August 25, 2010
ORDER
Before the Court are two Report and Recommendations from two United States Magistrate Judges. (Docs. 18, 39). The Court will address each Report and Recommendation separately.
I. Judge Hicks's December 12, 2009 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18)
In a Report and Recommendation filed December 12, 2009, United States Magistrate Judge Claude W. Hicks, Jr. recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 14) and Motion to Expedite Motion to Place Defendant in Default (Doc. 16) both be denied for lacking any basis for the entry of default or default judgment. (Doc. 18 at 1). Following the recommendation of denial, Judge Hicks's Report and Recommendation expressly states that "[p]ursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may file written objections to this recommendation with the Honorable W. Louis Sands, United States District Judge, WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of receipt thereof." (Doc. 18 at 1 (emphasis in original)). The fourteen day period has expired, and no objection has been filed. ( See generally Docket).
Upon full review and consideration upon the record, the Court finds that Judge Hicks's December 12, 2009 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) should be, and hereby is, ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and made the Order of this Court for reason of the findings made and reasons stated therein. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 14) and Motion to Expedite Motion to Place Defendant in Default (Doc. 16) are both DENIED.
II. Judge Langstaff's June 25, 2010 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 39)
In a Report and Recommendation filed June 25, 2010, United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff recommends that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 24) and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 31) both be granted for Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing his § 1983 action. (Doc. 39 at 6). Following the recommendation of granting the motions to dismiss, Judge Langstaff's Report and Recommendation expressly states that "[p]ursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may file written objections to the recommendations contained herein with the Honorable W. Louis Sands, United States District Judge, WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy of this recommendation." (Doc. 39 at 6-7 (emphasis in original)). The fourteen day period has expired, and no objection has been filed. ( See generally Docket).
Upon full review and consideration upon the record, the Court finds that Judge Langstaff's June 25, 2010 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 39) should be, and hereby is, ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and made the Order of this Court for reason of the findings made and reasons stated therein. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 24) and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 31) are both GRANTED. Consequently, the above-captioned case is DISMISSED.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Hicks's December 12, 2009 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) and Judge Langstaff's June 25, 2010 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 39) are both ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and made the Order of this Court for reason of the respective findings made and reasons stated therein. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 14) and Motion to Expedite Motion to Place Defendant in Default (Doc. 16) are both DENIED; Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 24) and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 31) are both GRANTED; and the above-captioned case is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.