Opinion
Case No. 1:13-cv-573
01-10-2014
JOHN T. MUENCH, Plaintiff, v. CALDERHEAD, LOCKEMEYER & PESCHKE LAW OFFICE, et al., Defendants.
Weber, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on defendants Calderhead, Lockemeyer & Peschke Law Office, David C. Calderhead, and Joshua F. DeBra's motion to consolidate (Doc. 9) and plaintiff's responsive memorandum (Doc. 10). For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation issued on January 8, 2014, in Canter v. Calderhead, Lockemeyer & Peschke Law Office, et al., No. 1:13-cv-514 (S.D. Ohio 2013) (Doc. 24), the Court recommends that defendants' motion to consolidate be GRANTED and that this case be consolidated with Case No. 1:13-cv-514.
__________
Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate Judge
JOHN T. MUENCH, Plaintiff, vs. CALDERHEAD, LOCKEMEYER & PESCHKE LAW OFFICE, et al., Defendants.
Case No. 1:13-cv-573
Weber, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING THE FILING OF OBJECTIONS TO R&R
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party's objections WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).