Evans v. CenturyLink, No. 2:2012cv00343 - Document 22 (D. Utah 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ADOPTING 21 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: granting 4 Motion to Dismiss; denying 11 Motion to Amend/Correct; finding as moot 16 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 3/26/13 (alt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION CRESSALYN EVANS, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION v. Case No. 2:12-CV-343-DN-PMW CENTURY LINK CORPORATION, Defendant. District Judge David Nuffer Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner under 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1)(B). 1 On March 8, 2013, Judge Warner issued a Report & Recommendation (R&R) 2 recommending that this court: (1) DENY Plaintiff Evans s motion for leave to amend the original complaint; and (2) GRANT Defendant s motion to dismiss the original complaint, and render MOOT Defendant s motion to dismiss the proposed amended complaint. 3 The parties were notified of their right to file objections to the R&R within 14 days after receiving it. 4 No objections to the R&R were filed or received by the court. The court has conducted a de novo review of the issues and agrees with Judge Warner s analysis, conclusions and recommendations. Accordingly, the R&R is adopted as the order of this court. 1 Order Referring Case, docket no. 8, filed May 22, 2012. 2 Docket no. 21, filed March 8, 2013. 3 Id. at 13. 4 Id. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the R&R 5 is ADOPTED as the order of the court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Evans s motion to amend the complaint is DENIED, 6 Defendant s motion to dismiss the original complaint is GRANTED, 7 and Defendant s motion to dismiss the amended complaint is MOOT. 8 Signed March 26, 2013. BY THE COURT ________________________________________ District Judge David Nuffer 5 Docket no. 21. 6 Request to Amend Complaint, docket no. 11 filed May 24, 2012. 7 Motion to Dismiss, docket no. 4, filed April 17, 2012. 8 Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, docket no. 16, filed June 11, 2012. 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
