U.S. v. Scheper, 1:15-cv-654. (2016)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20160518e14
Visitors: 5
Filed: May 17, 2016
Latest Update: May 17, 2016
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 14) OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE TIMOTHY S. BLACK , District Judge . This case 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 filed with this Court, and, on April 29, 2016, submitted a Report
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 14) OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE TIMOTHY S. BLACK , District Judge . This case 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 filed with this Court, and, on April 29, 2016, submitted a Report a..
More
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 14) OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
TIMOTHY S. BLACK, District Judge.
This case 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 filed with this Court, and, on April 29, 2016, submitted a Report and Recommendations ("R&R"). (Doc. 14). No objections were filed.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), 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 R&R should be and is hereby ADOPTED in its entirety.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons:
1. The petition to enforce IRS summons (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED; and
2. This matter is CLOSED on the docket of the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
