Thompson v. City of Norton

Full title: Chasidy L. Thompson, Plaintiff v. City of Norton, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Mar 15, 2010

Case No. 5:92CV0796 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 15, 2010)

Opinion

Case No. 5:92CV0796.

March 15, 2010

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DAVID PERELMAN, Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff's counsel has filed a pleading captioned as "Plaintiff's Appeal Pursuant To Rule 72(a) From Magistrate Judge David S. Perelman's March 1, 2010 memorandum Opinion And Order" (Doc. #97). In the body thereof it is stated that such appeal is "pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and Local Civil Rule 72.3(a)."

Each of those Rules applies to matters before a Magistrate Judge upon referral of a District Judge.

This Case was before this Court consequent to consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Local Rule 73.1, thereby vesting full jurisdiction in this Court. Therefore, any appeal form rulings of this Court must be to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and review may not be obtained under Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules.

This being so, plaintiff's submission is procedurally improper, and shall be stricken from the record.¹

1 If the pleading was to be considered by this Court as a motion for reconsideration of the March 1^st ruling it would be denied as such.

IT IS SO ORDERED