From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wooten v. Lightburn

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Abingdon Division
Mar 13, 2009
Civil Action No. 1:08cv00049 (W.D. Va. Mar. 13, 2009)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 1:08cv00049.

March 13, 2009


ORDER


This case is currently before the court on the defendant's Motion To Dismiss, (Docket Item No. 5), ("Motion"). The Motion was referred, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), to the Honorable Pamela Meade Sargent, United States Magistrate Judge. On February 23, 2009, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report And Recommendation, (Docket Item No. 12), ("the Report"), recommending that the Motion be denied. In addition, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the court give the defendant 20 days from the date of the order denying the Motion to file his Answer to the Complaint. Objections to the Report were due by March 12, 2009; however, no objections were filed. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge's Report shall be ACCEPTED.

For the reasons set out in the Report, the Motion is DENIED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant shall file his responsive pleadings to the Complaint within 20 days of the date of entry of this Order.

The Clerk is directed to enter this Order and send certified copies to all counsel of record.


Summaries of

Wooten v. Lightburn

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Abingdon Division
Mar 13, 2009
Civil Action No. 1:08cv00049 (W.D. Va. Mar. 13, 2009)
Case details for

Wooten v. Lightburn

Case Details

Full title:OLIN WOOTEN, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT C. LIGHTBURN, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Abingdon Division

Date published: Mar 13, 2009

Citations

Civil Action No. 1:08cv00049 (W.D. Va. Mar. 13, 2009)

Citing Cases

Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Mitchell Co.

Other federal courts have done so as well under the state statutes of their jurisdiction. See, e.g., The…

Regions Bank v. Stewart

The Court notes that this Court has previously issued a charging order pursuant to this statute, see Vision…