From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hitachi Medical Systems America, Inc. v. Branch

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Oct 7, 2010
CASE NO. 5:09-CV-01575 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 7, 2010)

Opinion

CASE NO. 5:09-CV-01575.

October 7, 2010


ORDER


Before the Court is the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in the above-entitled action issued on September 14, 2010. Under the explicit terms of that report and recommendation, and in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court: "ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of Court within fourteen (14) days of service of this notice." (Doc. No. 173 at 24) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 72: L. R. 72.3). In this case, the fourteen-day period has elapsed, and no objections have been filed. The failure to file written objections to a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation constitutes a waiver of a de novo determination by the district court of an issue covered in the report. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff'd, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981); see also L.R. 72.3(b).

The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation (Doc. No. 173) and adopts the same. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 41) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 7, 2010


Summaries of

Hitachi Medical Systems America, Inc. v. Branch

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Oct 7, 2010
CASE NO. 5:09-CV-01575 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 7, 2010)
Case details for

Hitachi Medical Systems America, Inc. v. Branch

Case Details

Full title:HITACHI MEDICAL SYSTEMS AMERICA, INC., PLAINTIFF, v. DANIEL BRANCH et al.…

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

Date published: Oct 7, 2010

Citations

CASE NO. 5:09-CV-01575 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 7, 2010)

Citing Cases

Sophia's Cure Inc. v. AveXis, Inc.

The former asks a court to hold A vicariously liable for B's debts, while the latter asserts that A and B are…

Bavely v. Daniels (In re Daniels)

One Ohio appeals court recently pointed out that Ohio courts have criticized this approach: "if a corporate…