Baumgartner v. Shewalter

Filing 43

Memorandum Opinion and Order Petitioner's Motion to Strike Respondent's Response to Petitioner's Objections to Orders Received 9/1/2011 (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f); LR 72.3(a) (ECF No. 34 ) is denied. The Magistrate Judge's order contains nothing that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Therefore, the Court overrules Petitioner's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Order. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 6/1/2012. (S,L)

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ELSEBETH BAUMGARTNER,
Petitioner,
v.
LaSHAUN EPPINGER, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:10CV2810

JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
[Resolving ECF Nos. 29 and 34]

Petitioner filed the following:
[Fifth] Motion for Extension of Time Until August 19, 2011 to File Traverse or
Response to Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 25);
Motion for Transcripts, Including Exhibits (Rule 5(c) of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (ECF No. 26); and
Motion for Disqualification of Magistrate Judge McHargh (28 U.S.C. § 455(a)
and (b)(1) and (3)) (ECF No. 27).
The Magistrate Judge entered a Memorandum and Order (ECF No. 28) denying ECF Nos. 25 and
27, and denying as moot ECF No. 26. Petitioner objected (ECF No. 29). See Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(a).1 Respondent filed a Response to Petitioner’s Objections (ECF No. 30), to which
Petitioner filed a Motion to Strike (ECF No. 34).
1

This Rule provides in relevant part:
When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party’s claim or
defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide,
the magistrate judge must . . . issue a written order stating
the decision. A party may serve and file objections to the
order within 14 days after being served with a copy. A
party may not assign as error a defect in the order not
timely objected to. The district judge in the case must
consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part
of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.

(1:10CV2810)
Petitioner’s Motion to Strike Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Objections to Orders
Received September 1, 2011 (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f); LR 72.3(a) (ECF No. 34) is denied.
The Magistrate Judge’s order contains nothing that is clearly erroneous or contrary to
law. Therefore, the Court overrules Petitioner’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Memorandum and Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 1, 2012
Date

/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge

2