From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Piskura v. Taser Inter

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio
Dec 8, 2011
C-1-10-248 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 8, 2011)

Opinion

C-1-10-248

December 08, 2011.


ORDER


This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 67) to which no 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 the parties, this Court accepts the Report as uncontroverted.

The Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 67) denying Taser International's Motion for Sanctions (doc. no. 49) is hereby ADOPTED AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE.

This case is RECOMMITTED to the United States Magistrate Judge for further proceedings according to law.

The parties have made no objection to the pretrial orders issued by the Magistrate Judge regarding defendant Taser Internationals' Motion to Compel (doc. no. 49) and the Oxford defendants' Motion to Compel (doc. no. 52). Those pretrial orders, therefore, shall control the proceedings in this case. IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Piskura v. Taser Inter

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio
Dec 8, 2011
C-1-10-248 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 8, 2011)
Case details for

Piskura v. Taser Inter

Case Details

Full title:PISKURA v. TASER INTER

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

Date published: Dec 8, 2011

Citations

C-1-10-248 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 8, 2011)

Citing Cases

Gelan v. Miranda

This generally means that “‘a reasonable inquiry' is limited to review and inquiry of those persons and…