Scalia v. Mica Contracting, LLC, 1:18cv590. (2020)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20200218796
Visitors: 4
Filed: Feb. 11, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 11, 2020
Summary: ORDER SUSAN J. DLOTT , District Judge . This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings and filed with this Court on December 10, 2019 a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 40). Subsequently, the defendants filed objections to such Report and Recommendation (
Summary: ORDER SUSAN J. DLOTT , District Judge . This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings and filed with this Court on December 10, 2019 a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 40). Subsequently, the defendants filed objections to such Report and Recommendation (D..
More
ORDER
SUSAN J. DLOTT, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings and filed with this Court on December 10, 2019 a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 40). Subsequently, the defendants filed objections to such Report and Recommendation (Doc. 42). Plaintiff's filed a response to the objections (Doc. 45). Defendants filed a motion requesting leave to file a reply brief in support of their objections (Doc. 46) and the plainitff's filed a response to the motion (Doc. 47).
Upon review of the Court, the motion to file reply brief in support of their objections (Doc. 46) is DENIED.
The Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does determine that such Recommendation should be adopted.
Accordingly, the defendants House, J&E, and Thompson's motion for leave to file a third-party complaint is DENIED in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
