Summary
holding that the cited terms of an employee handbook lacked the "definiteness in duration" required "to assert a claim for promissory estoppel" because the handbook also provided any of its provisions "may be revised from time to time as dictated by the operational needs of the company"
Summary of this case from Geomatrix, LLC v. NSF Int'lOpinion
#1:02CV918
August 21, 2003
O-R-D-E-R
On March 24, 2003 and June 13, 2003, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge were filed and notices were served on Plaintiff and a copies were given to the court.
Within the time limitation set forth in the statute, Plaintiff objected to the Recommendations.
The court notes that, in connection with Plaintiffs objections to the June 13, 2003, Recommendation, Plaintiff has filed a document styled Motion For Leave To Amend Complaint (docket 29). Unfortunately, Plaintiff has failed to include a proposed amended complaint for the court's review or for Defendant's review with this filing, and the motion is DENIED.
The court has appropriately reviewed the portions of the Magistrate Judge's reports to which objections were made and has made a de novo determination which is in accord with the Magistrate Judge's reports. The court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge's Recommendations.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Pleading no. #10] be GRANTED in that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of contract, promissory estoppel or fraudulent inducement. A judgment dismissing this action will be entered contemporaneously with this Order.
J-U-D-G-M-E-N-T
For the reasons set forth in the Order filed contemporaneously with this Judgment,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action be, and the same hereby is, dismissed with prejudice.