From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tucker v. Ganshimer

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Aug 15, 2008
CASE NO. 1:07CV1035 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 15, 2008)

Summary

pointing out that "[t]he same definition of a "substantial limitation" of a major life activity persists through all three titles of the ADA"

Summary of this case from Hentze v. CSX Transp., Inc.

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:07CV1035.

August 15, 2008


ORDER


On July 25, 2007, this Court issued an order assigning this case to Magistrate Judge James S. Gallas for general pre-trial supervision. (Dkt. # 5). On July 30, 2008, the Magistrate issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Court DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 46) and GRANT Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 47, 49). The Magistrate Judge further recommends that the Court DENY Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (Dkt. # 40). Finally, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the instant matter be DISMISSED.

FED. R. CIV.P. 72(b) provides that objections to a report and recommendation must be filed within ten (10) days after service, but Plaintiff has failed to timely file any such objections. Therefore, the Court must assume that Plaintiff is satisfied with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Any further review by this Court would be a duplicative and an inefficient use of the Court's limited resources. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff'd, 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).

Therefore, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Gallas is hereby ADOPTED. (Dkt. # 62). Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. (Dkt. # 46). Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment are GRANTED. (Dkt. # 47, 49). Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. (Dkt. # 40).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Tucker v. Ganshimer

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Aug 15, 2008
CASE NO. 1:07CV1035 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 15, 2008)

pointing out that "[t]he same definition of a "substantial limitation" of a major life activity persists through all three titles of the ADA"

Summary of this case from Hentze v. CSX Transp., Inc.
Case details for

Tucker v. Ganshimer

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY TUCKER, PLAINTIFF, v. RICHARD GANSHIMER, DEFENDANT

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

Date published: Aug 15, 2008

Citations

CASE NO. 1:07CV1035 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 15, 2008)

Citing Cases

Hentze v. CSX Transp., Inc.

That being said, the one case the Court has identified that mentions the issue in passing seems to reject the…