From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morris v. Hornet Corp.

United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION
Oct 3, 2018
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:17-CV-00350 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 2018)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:17-CV-00350

10-03-2018

GEORGE MORRIS, Plaintiff, v. HORNET CORPORATION, Defendant.


JUDGE MAZZANT/JUDGE JOHNSON

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF 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 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On September 14, 2018, the Magistrate Judge entered proposed findings of fact and recommendations (Dkt. #39) that Defendant Hornet Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #20) be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and Plaintiff George Morris's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. #23) be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Having received the report of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto having been timely filed, the Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts the Magistrate Judge's report as the findings and conclusions of the Court. Therefore, in accordance with the Report (Dkt. #39), Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #20) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. #23) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this 3rd day of October, 2018.

/s/_________

AMOS L. MAZZANT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Morris v. Hornet Corp.

United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION
Oct 3, 2018
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:17-CV-00350 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 2018)
Case details for

Morris v. Hornet Corp.

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE MORRIS, Plaintiff, v. HORNET CORPORATION, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

Date published: Oct 3, 2018

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:17-CV-00350 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 3, 2018)

Citing Cases

Thomas v. Life Protect 24/7, Inc.

Pertinent here, § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) essentially bans robocalls to cell phones, with § 227(c)(5) and 47 CFR §…