Howarth v. Concurrent Technologies Corp.

Full title: LESLIE PAUL HOWARTH, Plaintiff v. CONCURRENT TECHNOLOGIES CORP., Defendant

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

Date published: Aug 29, 2005

Civil Action No. 05-28J (W.D. Pa. Aug. 29, 2005)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 05-28J.

August 29, 2005

MEMORANDUM ORDER

GARY LANCASTER, District Judge

This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto for proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1), and subsections 3 and 4 of Local Rule 72.1 for Magistrate Judges.

The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation on July 25, 2005, docket no. 17, recommending that the defendant's motion to dismiss, docket no. 7, be granted.

The parties were notified that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1), they had ten days to serve and file written objections to the Report and Recommendation. No objections have been filed, and the time to do so has expired.

After review of the record of this matter together with the Report and Recommendation, and noting the lack of timely objections thereto, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 20 ^th day of August, 2005, it is

ORDERED that the defendant's motion to dismiss, docket no. 7, is granted. The Report and Recommendation is adopted as the opinion of the Court. The Clerk shall mark this matter closed.