Swartz et al v. DiCarlo
Order Adopting 14 Report and Recommendation denying 8 Motion to remand to State Court . Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 3/8/2013. (R,D)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
JAMES R. SWARTZ, JR, et al.,
MARK A. DICARLO,
CASE NO. 1:12CV3112
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
This Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation (Doc.# 14) of Magistrate
Judge Kenneth S. McHargh regarding the Motion of Plaintiffs James R. Swartz, Jr., et al.,
for Remand (Doc.#8). The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Remand be denied, and that Defendant be granted ten days in which to correct the defects
in the Notice of Removal. On February 20, 2013, Defendant filed Mark A. Dicarlo’s
Compliance with Report and Recommendations.
FED. R. CIV.P. 72(b) provides that objections to a Report and Recommendation
must be filed within fourteen days after service, but Plaintiffs have failed to timely file any
such objections. Therefore, the Court must assume that Plaintiffs are satisfied with the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.
Any further review by this Court would be a
duplicative and inefficient use of the Court’s limited resources. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d
813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff’d, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Secretary of Health and Human
Services, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th
Therefore, the Court adopts in full the Report and Recommendation (Doc.# 14),
and denies Plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?