Shaw v. Saul, 1:19CV1389. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20191223e73
Visitors: 11
Filed: Dec. 20, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 20, 2019
Summary: ORDER CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO , District Judge . On June 17, 2019, Defendant filed a notice of removal in this Court of Plaintiff's Complaint filed in the Cleveland Municipal Court. (Doc. 1). The Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert pursuant to Local Rule 72.2. On November 22, 2019, the Magistrate Judge recommended the Court grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety without prejudice. (Doc. 9). Plainti
Summary: ORDER CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO , District Judge . On June 17, 2019, Defendant filed a notice of removal in this Court of Plaintiff's Complaint filed in the Cleveland Municipal Court. (Doc. 1). The Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert pursuant to Local Rule 72.2. On November 22, 2019, the Magistrate Judge recommended the Court grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety without prejudice. (Doc. 9). Plaintif..
More
ORDER
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, District Judge.
On June 17, 2019, Defendant filed a notice of removal in this Court of Plaintiff's Complaint filed in the Cleveland Municipal Court. (Doc. 1). The Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert pursuant to Local Rule 72.2. On November 22, 2019, the Magistrate Judge recommended the Court grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety without prejudice. (Doc. 9). Plaintiff has not filed an objection.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 provides that objections to a report and recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after service. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). Plaintiff has failed to timely file any such objections. Therefore, the Court must assume that Plaintiff is satisfied with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Any further review by this Court would be duplicative and an inefficient use of the Court's limited resources. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff'd 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Serv., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Therefore, Magistrate Judge Limbert's Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
