Opinions of the United 2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-7-2007 Vavro v. AK Steel Co Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-4161 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007 Recommended Citation "Vavro v. AK Steel Co" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 250. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/250 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.  NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Nos. 06-4161and 06-4488 PHILLIP A. VAVRO, Appellant v. A.K. STEEL CO; UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN; UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE; JAMES W. ALBERS; STANLEY BERENT; RAILROAD OCCUPATIONAL INTRA-INDUSTRY CLAIMS ORGANIZATION; JOHN AND MARY DOES 1-100; DOE CORPORATIONS, PARTNERSHIPS OR OTHER ENTITIES 1-100 Case No. 06-4161 PHILLIP A. VAVRO, Appellant v. ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS; NEUROBEHAVIORAL RESOURCES, INC. Case No. 06-4488 Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Nos. 05-cv-00321and 06-cv-00115) District Judge: Honorable David S. Cercone Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) November 2, 2007 Before: RENDELL, WEIS and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges. Filed: November 7, 2007  OPINION OF THE COURT RENDELL, Circuit Judge. This case involves numerous state and federal claims brought by Phillip Vavro against various defendants in two different cases, Vavro v. A.K. Steel Co. (06-4161) (“Vavro I”) and Vavro v. Association of American Railroads (06-4488) (“Vavro II”). Vavro I was filed on March 10, 2005 and was assigned to Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan. On January 27, 2006, Vavro commenced Vavro II. It was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Lenihan, but she recused herself because of a conflict with counsel in that case. On August 1, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation in Vavro I, recommending that the Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) be granted. On August 3, 2006, Vavro filed a motion to “enforce” the recusal order entered in Vavro II in Vavro I, which the District Court denied on August 9, 2006. On August 29, 2006, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in Vavro I and, on September 21, 2006, granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in Vavro II. Vavro now appeals the orders of dismissal in Vavro I and Vavro II and the denial of his motion for recusal in Vavro I. As to the denial of his motion for recusal, Vavro failed to file a notice of appeal of the District Court’s order and therefore has waived any appeal. With regard to the dismissal of Vavro I and Vavro II, we will affirm the orders of the District Court for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s thorough Report and 2 Recommendation in Vavro I and the District Court’s carefully considered Memorandum Opinion and Order in Vavro II. 3