From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Soper v. Infusion Partners, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
Jan 29, 2009
Case Number: 1:07cv645 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 29, 2009)

Summary

holding that estoppel claim is improper where a pension plan and actuarial concerns are at issue

Summary of this case from Cataldo v. U.S. Steel Corp.

Opinion

Case Number: 1:07cv645.

January 29, 2009


ORDER


This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United States Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Black. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings and filed with this Court on November 26, 2008 a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 26). Subsequently, the plaintiff filed objections to such Report and Recommendations and defendants filed a response to the objections (Doc. 33).

The Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does determine that such Recommendations should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to set aside the administrative decision (Doc. 17) is DENIED. Objections to Magistrate Judge's order (Doc. 27) are hereby DENIED AS MOOT. This case is hereby CLOSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Soper v. Infusion Partners, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
Jan 29, 2009
Case Number: 1:07cv645 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 29, 2009)

holding that estoppel claim is improper where a pension plan and actuarial concerns are at issue

Summary of this case from Cataldo v. U.S. Steel Corp.
Case details for

Soper v. Infusion Partners, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:DANA SOPER, Plaintiff(s), v. INFUSION PARTNERS, INC., Defendant(s)

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

Date published: Jan 29, 2009

Citations

Case Number: 1:07cv645 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 29, 2009)

Citing Cases

Cataldo v. U.S. Steel Corp.

(Am Compl. ¶¶ 81-82.) Defendants correctly argue that the Sixth Circuit has not recognized an estoppel claim…