From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Monnheimer v. Nielsen

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
Nov 11, 2010
CASE NO. 1:08-cv-356 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 11, 2010)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-356.

November 11, 2010


ORDER


This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation filed by the Magistrate Judge on September 27, 2010. (Doc. 50.) Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file timely objections to the Report and Recommendation. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). No objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation have been filed.

Having reviewed this matter de novo pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to be correct. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 38) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Exhibit


Summaries of

Monnheimer v. Nielsen

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
Nov 11, 2010
CASE NO. 1:08-cv-356 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 11, 2010)
Case details for

Monnheimer v. Nielsen

Case Details

Full title:Michael C. Monnheimer, Plaintiff, v. A.C. Nielsen, Defendant

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

Date published: Nov 11, 2010

Citations

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-356 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 11, 2010)

Citing Cases

Tingle v. Arbors at Hilliard

The plaintiff's expression of opposition, however, must concern a violation of the statute for the plaintiff…