Opinion
Case No. 1:09-cv-120 (WLS)
09-18-2012
LAMONT HOWARD, Plaintiff, v. ELAINE HUTTO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff, filed August 30, 2012. (Doc. 46.) It is recommended that Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action be dismissed pursuant to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution. (Id at 44.)
The Report and Recommendation provided Plaintiff with fourteen (14) days from the date of its service to file written objections to the recommendations therein. (Id. at 46.) The period for filing objections expired on September 16, 2012; no objections have been filed to date. (See Docket.)
The Parties were given an additional three days because service was made by mail. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (adding three days to specified period within which a party may act if service is made under Rule 5(b)(2)(C) by mailing process to a party's last known address).
Upon full review and consideration of the record, and in view of the absence of an objection on the record, the Court finds that U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Q. Langstaff's August 30, 2012 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 46) 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. 44) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's § 1983 Complaint (Doc. 1) and is therefore DISMISSED entirely.
________________________
THE HONORABLE W. LOUIS SANDS ,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT