Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-3020 - Hendricks et al v. Uhlfelder et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-3020 - Hendricks et al v. Uhlfelder et al
March 23, 2017
PDF | More
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b), the district court has referred this case to the United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial management. The undersigned respectfully recommends that the district court should GRANT Defendants Daniel W. Uhlfelder and Daniel W. Uhlfelder, P.A.'s 7 Motion to Dismiss and Defendants Pennington, P.A. and Cynthia S. Tunnicliff's 9 Motion to Dismiss. The district court should dismiss Plaintiff's claims without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. (see order) (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Paul D Stickney on 3/23/2017) (mcrd)
April 13, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER: After considering the motions, briefs, evidence, pleadings, record in this case, and Report, the court determines that the 33 Findings and Recommendations of the magistrate judge are correct, accepts them as those of the court, and overrules Plaintiffs' objections. Accordingly, the court grants Defendants' Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Docs. 7, 9) and dismisses without prejudice this action for lack of personal jurisdiction. All costs are taxed against Plaintiffs. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 4/13/2017) (epm)