UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
August 16, 2010
AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY, AS SUBROGEE OF NAMAN HOSPITALITY, L.P. AND NAMAN L.L.C. D/B/A BEST WESTERN &NDASH; NEW CUMBERLAND, 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, LLC, SIMPLEXGRINNELL LP, AND STR GRINNELL GP HOLDING INC., THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
(Magistrate Judge Smyser)
Any party may obtain a review of the Report and Recommen- dation pursuant to Rule 72.3 of the Rules of Court, M.D.Pa., which provides:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.