Clark v. Burke, 1:16-cv-547. (2018)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20180615870
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jun. 06, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 06, 2018
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 56) 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 Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on May 4, 2018, submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 56). Plaintiff filed an ob
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 56) 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 Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on May 4, 2018, submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 56). Plaintiff filed an obj..
More
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 56) 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 Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on May 4, 2018, submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 56). Plaintiff filed an objection ("Objection"). (Doc. 57).1
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 in its entirety. Accordingly:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 56) is ADOPTED;
2. Plaintiff's Objection (Doc.57) is OVERRULED;
3. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 48) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's excessive force claim against Defendants Burke and Ewen in their individual capacities is DISMISSED without prejudice;
4. Plaintiff's "motion for relief" (Doc. 42) is DENIED as moot;
5. Plaintiff's motion for relief for mistake" (Doc. 47) is DENIED as moot;
6. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith, and accordingly, Plaintiff is denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis; 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 Objection is not well-taken. The Objection argues that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether Defendants Burke and Ewan used excessive force against Plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 57 at 1-2). However, the Objection offers no argument in response to the Magistrate Judge's correct conclusion that summary judgment is appropriate because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Doc. 56 at 5-9).
Source: Leagle
