Winkle v. Loranger et al
Filing
21
RECOMMITTAL ORDER - The District Judge has preliminarily considered the Objections and believes they will be more appropriately resolved after further analysis by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), this matter is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge with instructions to file a supplemental report analyzing the Objections and making recommendations based on that analysis. Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 5-7-2014. (de)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
MARK R. WINKLE,
Plaintiff,
-
vs
:
Case No. 3:14-cv-020
District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
-
CAROL S. LORANGER, et al.,
Defendants.
:
RECOMMITTAL ORDER
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff=s Objections (Doc. No. 17) to the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendations (Doc. No. 14). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, the Moving
Defendants have a right to file a response to those Objections which is not due to be filed until
May 19, 2014.
The District Judge has preliminarily considered the Objections and believes they will be
more appropriately resolved after further analysis by the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), this matter is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions to file a supplemental report analyzing the Objections and making recommendations
based on that analysis.
May 7, 2104.
*s/Thomas M. Rose
_____________________________
Thomas M. Rose
United States District Judge
1
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?