Eleanor G. Tennyson

“For the reasons set forth below, the Court recommends that Defendant’s motion be GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART.”

Sua sponte prisoner-civil-rights screening recommendation under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. Tennyson recommended dismissal, and Chief Judge Connolly adopted the recommendation in full on April 8, 2025: 'Magistrate Tennyson's Report and Recommendation (D.I. 12) is ADOPTED.' The complaint was dismissed without prejudice as to the individual defendants Carter, Banya, and Jolly, with leave to amend, and with prejudice as to JTVCC. The recommendation was filed March 17 and adopted 22 days later without objections.

“Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Defendant's counterclaims of inequitable conduct and to strike the related affirmative defenses, D.I. 227, is granted-in-part and denied-in-part as set forth in the Report and Recommendation, D.I. 293.”

“The Court therefore recommends striking Ascent's sixth and tenth affirmative defenses from its Amended Answer... The Court recommends that Astellas's motion to strike Ascent's eighth affirmative defense be denied.”

“Magistrate Judge Tennyson denied both motions in relevant part... She denied the first motion because Ascent 'did not move with sufficient diligence to add the '780 patent counterclaims and related affirmative defenses and that Ascent unduly delayed in attempting to do so.'”

“Weeks later, she denied the second motion on procedural and substantive grounds... Procedurally, Ascent failed to submit the deposition transcripts containing the purported new testimony that inspired the amendment... Substantively, changing Ascent's inequitable conduct theory after the close of fact discovery would delay the litigation and prejudice Astellas.”

“Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Rachel DeLoache Williams's ... request for an order compelling Defendant Netflix, Inc. ... to produce various documents exchanged between Netflix attorneys and certain third parties ... For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's request is DENIED.”

“CF Taurus's motion to quash the subpoena ... and to vacate the order granting discovery for use in foreign proceedings under 28 U.S.C. 1782 (D.I. 16), as well as Petitioners' cross-motion to compel compliance with the subpoena (D.I. 21). For the reasons set forth below, CF Taurus's motion is DENIED”

“and Petitioners' cross-motion is GRANTED as MODIFIED... The Court will therefore exercise its discretion and limit Petitioners' request as follows: CF Taurus shall produce all documents in its possession, custody or control that are communications ... with the Therium Group ... relating to an attempt to solicit investment in any of the Sulu Claimants' arbitration and enforcement proceedings.”

“Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (D.I. 12 ) is DENIED, and the Commissioner's cross-motion for summary judgment (D.I. 14) is GRANTED.”

Recommended dismissal with prejudice after statutory screening of the second amended prisoner complaint. No party motion was resolved, and district-judge adoption was not verified.

“the Court recommends that Defendant’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED and the Complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

Screened the complaint and recommended that an ADA discrimination claim proceed while other claims be dismissed, some with prejudice and others with leave to amend. The document mentions an earlier denial of temporary relief but does not decide that motion anew; district-judge adoption was not verified.

“the Court recommends that Officer Randazzo’s motion be GRANTED.”

“Defendants’ motion to dismiss (D.I. 8) be GRANTED and the Complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

“Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a sur-reply (D.I. 13) is DENIED”

“motion for electronic filing rights (D.I. 16) be DENIED as MOOT upon adoption of the undersigned’s Report and Recommendation.”