Court Opinion

ID: 3025569
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-13 22:33:57.546988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:46.273472
License: Public Domain

OPINION OF THE COURT
 

  RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
 

  This case involves numerous state and federal claims brought by Phillip Vavro against various defendants in two different cases,
  
   Vavro v. A.K. Steel Co.
  
  (06-4161)
  
   (“Vavro I”)
  
  and
  
   Vavro v. Association of American Railroads
  
  (06-4488) (“Vavro II”).
 

   Vavro I
  
  was filed on March 10, 2005 and was assigned to Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan. On January 27, 2006, Vavro commenced
  
   Vavro II.
  
  It was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Lenihan, but she recused herself because of a conflict with counsel in that case. On August 1, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation in
  
   Vavro I,
  
  recommending that the Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint
   
   *135
   
  pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) be granted. On August 3, 2006, Vavro filed a motion to “enforce” the recusal order entered in
  
   Vavro II
  
  in
  
   Vavro I,
  
  which the District Court denied on August 9, 2006. On August 29, 2006, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in
  
   Vavro I
  
  and, on September 21, 2006, granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in
  
   Vavro II.
  

  Vavro now appeals the orders of dismissal in
  
   Vavro I
  
  and
  
   Vavro II
  
  and the denial of his motion for recusal in
  
   Vavro I.
  
  As to the denial of his motion for recusal, Vavro failed to file a notice of appeal of the District Court’s order and therefore has waived any appeal. With regard to the dismissal of
  
   Vavro I
  
  and
  
   Vavro II,
  
  we will affirm the orders of the District Court for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s thorough Report and Recommendation in
  
   Vavro I
  
  and the District Court’s carefully considered Memorandum Opinion and Order in
  
   Vavro II.