Doe v. Proctor Gamble Company

Full title: JOHN DOE, Plaintiff v. THE PROCTOR AND GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant

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

Date published: Oct 30, 2009

C-1-09-222 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 30, 2009)

Opinion

C-1-09-222.

October 30, 2009

ORDER

HERMAN WEBER, District Judge

This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 42) and plaintiff's objections (doc. no. 48). The Magistrate Judge concluded that defendant did not fail to plead or otherwise defend and therefore recommended that plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (doc. no. 16).

Plaintiff objects to the Judge's Report and Recommendation on the grounds that his findings are contrary to law.

CONCLUSION

Upon a de novo review of the record, especially in light of plaintiff's objections, the Court finds that plaintiff's objections have either been adequately addressed and properly disposed of by the Judge or present no particularized arguments that warrant specific responses by this Court. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge has accurately set forth the controlling principles of law and properly applied them to the particular facts of this case and agrees with the Judge.

Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS AND INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 42). Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (doc. no. 16) is DENIED. This case is RECOMMITTED to the United States Magistrate Judge for further proceedings according to law.

IT IS SO ORDERED.