Fisher v. Cataldi, 1:16-cv-605. (2017)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20171218b12
Visitors: 16
Filed: Dec. 15, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 15, 2017
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 29) TIMOTHY S. BLACK , District Judge . This civil 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 and memoranda filed with this Court and, on July 12, 2017, su
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 29) TIMOTHY S. BLACK , District Judge . This civil 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 and memoranda filed with this Court and, on July 12, 2017, sub..
More
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 29)
TIMOTHY S. BLACK, District Judge.
This civil 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 and memoranda filed with this Court and, on July 12, 2017, submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 29) 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 Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby ADOPTED in its entirety.
Accordingly, Defendant Smith's motion to dismiss (Doc. 24) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
