MacQueen v. Union Carbide Corporation et al

Filing 548

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS recommending granting D.I. 431 MOTION for Summary Judgment to Dismiss all claims against it with prejudice. filed by Ingersoll-Rand Company, D.I. 464 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Spenc e Engineering Company Inc., and D.I. 458 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Defendant Spirax Sarco, Inc. filed by Spirax Sarco Inc.. Please note that when filing Objections pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), briefing cons ists solely of the Objections (no longer than ten (10) pages) and the Response to the Objections (no longer than ten (10) pages). No further briefing shall be permitted with respect to objections without leave of the Court. Objections to R&R due by 3/16/2015. Signed by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 2/25/2015. (dlk)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MARGUERITE MACQUEEN, Individually and as the Surviving Spouse of David MacQueen, Deceased, Plaintiff, V. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 13-831-SLR-CJB Consolidated REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 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. ยง 636(b)(l)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(l), 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 Dated: February 25, 2015 Christopher J. Burke UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?