From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wong-Opasi v. Holland Employment

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
Apr 11, 2006
Civil No. 3:05-0482 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 11, 2006)

Opinion

Civil No. 3:05-0482.

April 11, 2006


ORDER


On March 27, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the defendant's Motion to Dismiss be granted. (Docket No. 12) The plaintiff has filed Objections (Docket No. 13) and her Affidavit (Docket No. 14). Nothing in these two documents undermines or weakens the basis for the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. The plaintiff merely complains that she has been unable to secure the assistance of counsel and remarks that the court never granted or denied her "Notice of Temporary Absence" (Docket No. 8). First, the federal courts in this district do not recognize "Notices of Absence" filed by lawyers or parties, despite the fact that this procedure exists in some other districts. Second, as explained in the Report and Recommendation, the amount of time requested by the plaintiff has long passed, and she still has failed to respond to discovery.

For the reasons expressed herein, the Objections of the plaintiff are OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and made the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this court. For the reasons expressed therein and herein, the Motion to Dismiss filed by the defendant (Docket No. 9) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 41(b), FED. R. CIV. P., for failure to prosecute.

It is so ORDERED.


Summaries of

Wong-Opasi v. Holland Employment

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
Apr 11, 2006
Civil No. 3:05-0482 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 11, 2006)
Case details for

Wong-Opasi v. Holland Employment

Case Details

Full title:UTHAIWAN WONG-OPASI, Plaintiff, v. HOLLAND EMPLOYMENT, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division

Date published: Apr 11, 2006

Citations

Civil No. 3:05-0482 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 11, 2006)