McDougald v. Mahlman, 1:16-cv-317. (2018)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20180925g13
Visitors: 13
Filed: Sep. 24, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 24, 2018
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 108), OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS (Doc. 109), and TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT TIMOTHY S. BLACK , District Judge . This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court, and, on August 15, 2018, submitted a Repor
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 108), OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS (Doc. 109), and TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT TIMOTHY S. BLACK , District Judge . This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court, and, on August 15, 2018, submitted a Report..
More
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 108), OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS (Doc. 109), and TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT
TIMOTHY S. BLACK, District Judge.
This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court, and, on August 15, 2018, submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 108). Plaintiff filed objections ("Objections"). (Doc. 109). 12
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does determine that such Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby ADOPTED it its entirety.
Accordingly:
1. Plaintiff's motion to supplement his response (Doc. 106) is GRANTED;
2. Plaintiff's motion for leave to supplement his Objection (Doc. 110) is GRANTED;
3. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 108) is ADOPTED;
4. The Objections (Doc. 109) are OVERRULED;
5. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 73) is GRANTED;
6. Plaintiff's motion to proceed on judgment is DENIED AS MOOT; and
7. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is TERMINATED on the docket of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff's Objections contain conclusory arguments that Plaintiff's claims should be allowed to proceed to trial. The Objections do not explain "how the [Magistrate Judge's] analysis is wrong, why it was wrong and how de novo review will obtain a different result" on any particular issue. See Martin v. E.W. Scripps Co., No. 1:12-cv-844, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155673, at * 5 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 30, 2013). Nor do the Objections point to any affirmative evidence sufficient to create an issue of fact for trial. Accordingly, the Objections are OVERRULED.
2. Also before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for leave to supplement his Objection (Doc. 110). The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion and considers the filing at Doc. 110 as part of Plaintiff's Objection, which are all resolved here.
Source: Leagle
