Filed: Feb. 25, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 25, 2015
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CHRISTOPHER J. BURKE , Magistrate Judge . The Court, having reviewed Defendants Ingersoll Rand Co., Spirax Sarco, Inc. and Spence Engineering Co. Inc.'s (collectively, "Defendants") unopposed Motions for Summary Judgment, filed on October 17, 2014 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 ("Motions") (D.I. 431, 458, 464), and Plaintiff Marguerite MacQueen's letter filed on February 18, 2015, in which she confirms that she does not oppose dismissal of the clai
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CHRISTOPHER J. BURKE , Magistrate Judge . The Court, having reviewed Defendants Ingersoll Rand Co., Spirax Sarco, Inc. and Spence Engineering Co. Inc.'s (collectively, "Defendants") unopposed Motions for Summary Judgment, filed on October 17, 2014 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 ("Motions") (D.I. 431, 458, 464), and Plaintiff Marguerite MacQueen's letter filed on February 18, 2015, in which she confirms that she does not oppose dismissal of the claim..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CHRISTOPHER J. BURKE, Magistrate Judge.
The Court, having reviewed Defendants Ingersoll Rand Co., Spirax Sarco, Inc. and Spence Engineering Co. Inc.'s (collectively, "Defendants") unopposed Motions for Summary Judgment, filed on October 17, 2014 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 ("Motions") (D.I. 431, 458, 464), and Plaintiff Marguerite MacQueen's letter filed on February 18, 2015, in which she confirms that she does not oppose dismissal of the claims against these Defendants (D.I. 546), the Court recommends that these Motions be GRANTED and that all claims and cross-claims by any party against these Defendants be dismissed with prejudice.
This Report and Recommendation is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1), and D. Del. LR 72.1. The parties may serve and file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The failure of a party to object to legal conclusions may result in the loss of the right to de nova review in the district court. See Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878-79 (3d Cir. 1987); Sincavage v. Barnhart, 171 F. App'x 924, 925 n.l (3d Cir. 2006).
The parties are directed to the Court's Standing Order for Objections Filed Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, dated October 9, 2013, a copy of which is available on the District Court's website, located at http://www.ded.uscourts.gov.
