DUGAS v. WITTRUP, 2:15-cv-67. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20160111b47
Visitors: 11
Filed: Dec. 22, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 22, 2015
Summary: ORDER EDMUND A. SARGUS, Jr. , Chief District Judge . On November 30, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 99] recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion for an immediate injunction [ECF No. 63]. The Report and Recommendation advised the parties that failure to object within fourteen (14) days would result in a waiver of review. The time period for objections has run and no party has objected. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 99
Summary: ORDER EDMUND A. SARGUS, Jr. , Chief District Judge . On November 30, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 99] recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion for an immediate injunction [ECF No. 63]. The Report and Recommendation advised the parties that failure to object within fourteen (14) days would result in a waiver of review. The time period for objections has run and no party has objected. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 99]..
More
ORDER
EDMUND A. SARGUS, Jr., Chief District Judge.
On November 30, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 99] recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion for an immediate injunction [ECF No. 63]. The Report and Recommendation advised the parties that failure to object within fourteen (14) days would result in a waiver of review. The time period for objections has run and no party has objected.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 99] is ADOPTED, and for the reasons set forth in that document, Plaintiff's motion for an immediate injunction [ECF No. 63] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
