PENLAND v. DETERS, C-1-13-20. (2013)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20130605c14
Visitors: 19
Filed: Jun. 04, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 04, 2013
Summary: ORDER HERMAN J. WEBER, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 14) to which neither party has objected. Upon a de novo review of the record, the Court finds that the Judge has accurately set forth the applicable law and has properly applied it to the particular facts of this case. Accordingly, in the absence of any objection by plaintiff, this Court accepts the Report as uncontroverted. The Re
Summary: ORDER HERMAN J. WEBER, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 14) to which neither party has objected. Upon a de novo review of the record, the Court finds that the Judge has accurately set forth the applicable law and has properly applied it to the particular facts of this case. Accordingly, in the absence of any objection by plaintiff, this Court accepts the Report as uncontroverted. The Rep..
More
ORDER
HERMAN J. WEBER, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 14) to which neither party has objected.
Upon a de novo review of the record, the Court finds that the Judge has accurately set forth the applicable law and has properly applied it to the particular facts of this case. Accordingly, in the absence of any objection by plaintiff, this Court accepts the Report as uncontroverted. The Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 14) is hereby ADOPTED AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE.
Plaintiff's claims against defendants Deters and Rinehart in their individual capacities and his claims asserting criminal assault are DISMISSED. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). Plaintiff's claims asserted in causes of action 2, 3, 6 and 8 are also DISMISSED because these claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Finally, plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint (doc. no. 11) is DENIED.
This case is RECOMMITTED to the United States Magistrate for further proceedings according to law.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
