IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
August 16, 2010
AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF
VARISH CONSTRUCTION, INC., FRITZ FIRE PROTECTION CO., INC., AND HUDSON INSULATION SUPPLY OF PA, L.L.C., DEFENDANTS
VARISH CONSTRUCTION, INC., THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF
M&3S, INC., E&G ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, L.L.C., SIMPLEXGRINNELL, LP, AND STR GRINNELL GP HOLDING, INC., THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
AND NOW, this 16th day of August, 2010, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 101) of the magistrate judge, recommending (1) that the motion (Doc. 52), filed by third-party defendant SimplexGrinnell, LP ("SimplexGrinnell"), to dismiss the amended third-party complaint brought by Varish Construction, Inc. ("Varish"), be denied, (2) that the motion (Doc. 66), filed by third-party defendant STR Grinnell GP Holding, Inc. ("STR Grinnell"), to dismiss Varish's amended third-party complaint, be denied, (3) that the motion (Doc. 49), filed by SimplexGrinnell, to dismiss the cross-claim brought by E&G Electrical Contractors, L.L.C. ("E&G"), be granted, (4) that the motions (Docs. 83, 87), filed by SimplexGrinnell and STR Grinnell, for partial dismissal of the cross-claim brought by Fritz Fire Protection Co., Inc. ("Fritz"), be granted, (5) that E&G and Fritz be granted leave to file amended crossclaims, and (6) that the above-captioned case be remanded to the magistrate judge, and it appearing that neither party has objected to the magistrate judge's recommendations,*fn1 and, following an independent review of the record, it further appearing that there is no clear error on the face of the record,*fn2 see Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (explaining that "failing to timely object to [a report and recommendation] in a civil proceeding may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level"), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The report and recommendation (Doc. 101) of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED.
2. SimplexGrinnell's motion (Doc. 52) to dismiss Varish's amended third-party complaint is DENIED.
3. STR Grinnell's motion (Doc. 66) to dismiss Varish's amended third-party complaint is DENIED.
4. SimplexGrinnell's motion (Doc. 49) to dismiss E&G's cross-claim is GRANTED, without prejudice to E&G's leave to file an amended cross-claim.
5. The motions (Docs. 83, 87), filed by SimplexGrinnell and STR Grinnell, for partial dismissal of Fritz's cross-claim are GRANTED, without prejudice to Fritz's leave to file an amended cross-claim.
6. The case is REMANDED to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge