From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Graziano v. Nesco Service Company

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Mar 29, 2011
CASE NO. 1:09 CV 2661 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 29, 2011)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:09 CV 2661.

March 29, 2011


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Greg White for a Report and Recommendation ("R R") pursuant to Local Civil Rule 72.2(b)(2). In his R R, Magistrate Judge White recommends (1) granting Defendants Nesco Service Company's ("Nesco") and Nesco's President, John Tomsich's Motion to Dismiss Count Three (the fraud claim) of Mr. Graziano's Amended Complaint; (2) granting Nesco's and defendant Preferred Benefit Administrators' ("PBA") Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Count Six (provision of COBRA notice) of the Amended Complaint; and, (3) declaring moot PBA's Motion for Summary Judgment as to all counts of the Amended Complaint.

No party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's R R. Therefore, this Court will presume the parties are satisfied with the determination. Any further review by this Court would be a duplicative and inefficient use of the Court's limited resources. Thomas v. Arn, 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).

Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge's R R is adopted, only Counts I, II, IV, and V of the Amended Complaint remain.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Graziano v. Nesco Service Company

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Mar 29, 2011
CASE NO. 1:09 CV 2661 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 29, 2011)
Case details for

Graziano v. Nesco Service Company

Case Details

Full title:PAUL GRAZIANO, Plaintiff, v. NESCO SERVICE COMPANY, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Mar 29, 2011

Citations

CASE NO. 1:09 CV 2661 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 29, 2011)

Citing Cases

Cnty. of Summit v. Purdue Pharma L.P. (In re Nat'l Prescription Opiate Litig.)

"Any further review by this Court would be a duplicative and inefficient use of the Court's limited…