
    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. Phillip A. Vavro, Appellant v. Association of American Railroads; Neurobehavioral Resources, Inc.
    Nos. 06-4161, 06-4488.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Nov. 2, 2007.
    Filed: Nov. 7, 2007.
    George P. Chada, Natrona Heights, PA, for Appellant.
    Before: RENDELL, WEIS and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
   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 Recommendation in Vavro I and the District Court’s carefully considered Memorandum Opinion and Order in Vavro II.  