and 06-4488 PHILLIP A. VAVRO v. A.k. Steel Co

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Nos. 06-4161and 06-4488
PHILLIP A. VAVRO,
Appellant
v.
A.K. STEEL CO; UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN;
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE;
JAMES W. ALBERS; STANLEY BERENT;
RAILROAD OCCUPATIONAL
INTRA-INDUSTRY CLAIMS ORGANIZATION;
JOHN AND MARY DOES 1-100; DOE CORPORATIONS,
PARTNERSHIPS OR OTHER ENTITIES 1-100
Case No. 06-4161
PHILLIP A. VAVRO,
Appellant
v.
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS;
NEUROBEHAVIORAL RESOURCES, INC.
Case No. 06-4488
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Nos. 05-cv-00321and 06-cv-00115)
District Judge: Honorable David S. Cercone
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
November 2, 2007
Before: RENDELL, WEIS and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
Filed: November 7, 2007

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Recommendation in Vavro I and the District Court’s carefully considered Memorandum
Opinion and Order in Vavro II.

-- 3 of 3 --