From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Escamilla v. M2 Tech.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION
Sep 28, 2012
CAUSE NUMBER 4:11CV516 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 28, 2012)

Opinion

CAUSE NUMBER 4:11CV516

09-28-2012

DAVID ESCAMILLA, PLAINTIFF, v. M2 TECHNOLOGY, DEFENDANT


MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this matter having been heretofore referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On July 6, 2012, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Join a Party (FRCP 12(b)(7)) and for Failure to State a Claim (FRCP 12(b)(6)) (Dkt. 61) be GRANTED for failure to comply with the court's order and join a necessary party, that Plaintiff's First Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 20) be DENIED, and that the case be dismissed without prejudice.

The court has made a de novo review of the objections raised by Plaintiff as well as Defendant's response (Dkts. 79 & 80) and is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the objections are without merit as to the ultimate findings of the Magistrate Judge. The court hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this court.

Therefore, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Join a Party (FRCP 12(b)(7)) and for Failure to State a Claim (FRCP 12(b)(6)) (Dkt. 61) are GRANTED for failure to comply with the court's order and join a necessary party, Plaintiff's First Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 20) is DENIED, and the case shall be dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________

RICHARD A. SCHELL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Escamilla v. M2 Tech.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION
Sep 28, 2012
CAUSE NUMBER 4:11CV516 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 28, 2012)
Case details for

Escamilla v. M2 Tech.

Case Details

Full title:DAVID ESCAMILLA, PLAINTIFF, v. M2 TECHNOLOGY, DEFENDANT

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

Date published: Sep 28, 2012

Citations

CAUSE NUMBER 4:11CV516 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 28, 2012)

Citing Cases

Sgromo v. Imperial Toy LLC

Other courts have concluded that the sole shareholder of a corporation did not have standing for injuries…