Barwick v. Harshbarger

Full title: DARWYNN L. BARWICK, Plaintiff, v. KIMBERLY HARSHBARGER, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division, at Dayton

Date published: May 19, 2006

Case No. 3-:05-CV-214 (S.D. Ohio May. 19, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 3-:05-CV-214.

May 19, 2006

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING BARWICK'S OBJECTIONS (Doc. #18) TO THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING BARWICK'S MOTION FOR TIME TO OBJECT (Doc. #17) AND ADOPTING THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING BARWICK'S MOTION FOR TIME TO OBJECT IN ITS ENTIRETY

THOMAS ROSE, District Judge

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Barwick's Response to the Report and Recommendations on his Motion for Time To Object. (Doc. #18.) Barwick's Response is treated as an objection to the Report and Recommendations regarding Barwick's Motion for Extension of Time filed by Chief Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on April 17, 2006 (doc. #17). The Report and Recommendations to which Barwick presumably seeks an extension of time to object was filed on September 19, 2005.

The District Judge has made a de novo review of the record on this issue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Objections are not well-taken and they are hereby OVERRULED.

The Chief Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations regarding Barwick's Motion for Extension of Time is ADOPTED in its entirety. Barwick's Objections are both untimely and without merit. Barwick's Motion for Extension of Time is, therefore, OVERRULED.