The opinion of the court was delivered by: 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
The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation on July
18, 2005, docket no. 11, recommending that the defendant's motion
to dismiss, docket no. 3, be granted in part and denied in part,
and that the matter be dismissed without prejudice to proceeding
with the overlapping claim made at Howarth v. Mrkich, C.A. No.
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 20th day of August, 2005, it is
ORDERED that the defendant's Title II, Section 1983, and
Section 1985 claims are dismissed with prejudice. The complaint
is dismissed without prejudice to raising the remaining claim,
that plaintiff suffered a retaliatory denial of service on
December 20, 2004, at Howarth v. Mrkich, C.A. No. 04-315J. The
Report and Recommendation is adopted as the opinion of the Court.
The Clerk shall mark this matter closed.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw ...