HENDRICKS v. PICKAWAY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, 2:08-cv-580. (2016)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20160112d17
Visitors: 17
Filed: Jan. 11, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 11, 2016
Summary: ORDER GEORGE C. SMITH , District Judge . On December 21, 2015, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Defendants' Motion to Strike be denied and that Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions be denied. Further, Plaintiff's request for oral argument or evidentiary hearing on his motion is denied. ( See Report and Recommendation, Doc. 251). The parties were advised of their right to object to the Report and Recommendation. This matter is now befo
Summary: ORDER GEORGE C. SMITH , District Judge . On December 21, 2015, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Defendants' Motion to Strike be denied and that Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions be denied. Further, Plaintiff's request for oral argument or evidentiary hearing on his motion is denied. ( See Report and Recommendation, Doc. 251). The parties were advised of their right to object to the Report and Recommendation. This matter is now befor..
More
ORDER
GEORGE C. SMITH, District Judge.
On December 21, 2015, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Defendants' Motion to Strike be denied and that Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions be denied. Further, Plaintiff's request for oral argument or evidentiary hearing on his motion is denied. (See Report and Recommendation, Doc. 251). The parties were advised of their right to object to the Report and Recommendation. This matter is now before the Court on Defendants' Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. (See Doc. 256). The Court will consider the matter de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
Defendants do not object to the findings and recommendation of the December 21, 2015 Report and Recommendation. However, Defendants object, for purposes of appeal, to the Court's notation that "defendants failed to raise [the qualified immunity] defense." (Doc. 251). The Court acknowledges Defendants objection for purposes of appeal.
Because Defendants' objection is merely to preserve an argument for appeal and does not challenge the reasoning or conclusions of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the December 21, 2015 Report and Recommendation, Document 251, is hereby ADOPTED and AFFIRMED.
The Clerk shall remove Document 251 from the Court's pending motions list.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
