Young v. Winkler, 1:16-cv-1006. (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20190211492
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 31, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 31, 2019
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 45) TIMOTHY S. BLACK , District Judge . This case is before the Court pursuant to this Court's Orders referring disputes pertaining to the parties' settlement agreement to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman. (Docs. 24, 44). Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on December 17, 2018, submitted a Report and Recommendat
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 45) TIMOTHY S. BLACK , District Judge . This case is before the Court pursuant to this Court's Orders referring disputes pertaining to the parties' settlement agreement to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman. (Docs. 24, 44). Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on December 17, 2018, submitted a Report and Recommendati..
More
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 45)
TIMOTHY S. BLACK, District Judge.
This case is before the Court pursuant to this Court's Orders referring disputes pertaining to the parties' settlement agreement to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman. (Docs. 24, 44). Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on December 17, 2018, submitted a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 45). 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 the Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby adopted in its entirety.1
Accordingly:
1. Defendants' motion to strike (Doc. 36) is DENIED as moot;
2. Defendants' motion to enforce the parties' settlement agreement (Doc. 26) is DENIED as moot as it relates to the return of street signs previously in Plaintiffs' possession and GRANTED in all other respects;
3. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement (with the exception of the provision requiring the return of certain street signs); and
4. Plaintiffs' motion for relief from judgment (Doc. 33) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Also pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiffs' motion for relief from judgment (Doc. 36) on the grounds that Judge Newman lacks jurisdiction over said motion. In light of this Court's Order referring Plaintiffs' motion for relief from judgment to Judge Newman (Doc. 44), Defendants' motion to strike is DENIED as moot.
Source: Leagle
