From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schmidt v. Hodge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Feb 6, 2014
CASE NO. 1:12CV2779 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 6, 2014)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:12CV2779

02-06-2014

ROBERT SCHMIDT, Plaintiff, v. JAY HOWARD HODGE, et al., Defendants.


JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO


ORDER

This Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation (Doc.#69) of Magistrate Judge Baughman regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Regal Auto Body and Service, Incorporated ("Regal")(Doc.#44). The Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff's Motion be granted. Defendant has not filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation.

FED. R. CIV.P. 72(b) provides that objections to a Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after service, but Defendant has failed to timely file any such objections. Therefore, the Court must assume that Defendant is satisfied with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Any further review by this Court would be a duplicative and inefficient use of the Court's limited resources. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff'd, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981).

Therefore, the Court adopts in full the Report and Recommendation (Doc.#69 ) and grants Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment against Regal, as to liability only.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________

CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Schmidt v. Hodge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Feb 6, 2014
CASE NO. 1:12CV2779 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 6, 2014)
Case details for

Schmidt v. Hodge

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT SCHMIDT, Plaintiff, v. JAY HOWARD HODGE, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Date published: Feb 6, 2014

Citations

CASE NO. 1:12CV2779 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 6, 2014)