Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Carder v. Dodds

United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania

April 30, 2014

MARCUS CARDER, Plaintiff,
v.
MS. DODDS, et al., Defendants.

Motz, District Judge.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER, United States Magistrate Judge.

I. RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully recommended that this case be closed due to the filing of an Amended Complaint at Civil Action Number 13-349E. The Clerk of Courts should be directed to close this case and to terminate all pending motions.

II. REPORT

A. Relevant Procedural History

By a telephonic hearing held on March 24, 2014, in this and several other pending cases, Plaintiff was directed to file an Amended Complaint at Civil Action Number 13-349E consolidating all of his claims against all of his named Defendants. Correct Complaint forms were sent to Plaintiff and he was ordered to file the Amended Complaint within twenty days of the hearing.

On April 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reopen Case in Civil Action Number 13-349E, along with a document this Court has liberally construed as Plaintiff’s proposed Amended Complaint. As discussed at the March 24th hearing, the filing of the Amended Complaint at 13-349E renders the complaint at the above-captioned case number duplicative.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that this case be dismissed with prejudice.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, the parties must seek review by the district court by filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Any party opposing the objections shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of Objections to respond thereto. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of appellate rights. See Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 194 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011); Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2007).


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.