From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stewart v. Procter Gamble Company

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
Sep 12, 2006
C-1-06-374 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 12, 2006)

Opinion

C-1-06-374.

September 12, 2006


ORDER


This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 12) to which neither party has objected.

Upon a de novo review of the record, the Court finds that the Judge has accurately set forth the applicable law and has properly applied it to the particular facts of this case. Accordingly, in the absence of any objection by plaintiff, this Court accepts the Report as uncontroverted.

The Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 12) is hereby ADOPTED AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE. Plaintiff's Motion for a More Definite Statement/Answer and Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion to Dismiss (doc. no. 11) is DENIED. Defendant The Procter Gamble Company's Motion to Dismiss or Strike Pro Se Plaintiff's Eighth Complaint (doc. no. 6) is GRANTED and plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED.

This case is DISMISSED AND TERMINATED on the docket of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Stewart v. Procter Gamble Company

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
Sep 12, 2006
C-1-06-374 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 12, 2006)
Case details for

Stewart v. Procter Gamble Company

Case Details

Full title:DEBORAH STEWART, Plaintiff, v. PROCTER GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendants

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

Date published: Sep 12, 2006

Citations

C-1-06-374 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 12, 2006)

Citing Cases

Smith v. Flinkfelt

Because she has sufficiently pled this issue in another action it need not be adjudicated in the instant…