Summary
using postmark date for the date of filing of the complaint
Summary of this case from Inesti v. HicksOpinion
No. 09-CV-379 (TJM/RFT).
March 3, 2010
DECISION ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
This pro se action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Pub.L. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936, was referred to the Hon. Randolph F. Treece, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c). No objections to the Report-Recommendation and Order dated February 10, 2010 have been filed, and the time to do so has expired. Furthermore, after examining the record, this Court has determined that the Report-Recommendation and Order is not subject to attack for plain error or manifest injustice. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation and Order for the reasons stated therein.
It is therefore,
ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 17) is GRANTED and the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and to close the file in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.