ROGERS v. SHOSTAK, 1:14cv213. (2014)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20140617f38
Visitors: 17
Filed: Jun. 16, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 16, 2014
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL R. BARRETT, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation filed by the Magistrate Judge on April 28, 2014 (Doc. 19). Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) in a timely manner. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). No objections to the Magistrate Judg
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL R. BARRETT, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation filed by the Magistrate Judge on April 28, 2014 (Doc. 19). Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) in a timely manner. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). No objections to the Magistrate Judge..
More
ORDER
MICHAEL R. BARRETT, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation filed by the Magistrate Judge on April 28, 2014 (Doc. 19).
Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) in a timely manner. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). No objections to the Magistrate Judge=s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) have been filed.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. Plaintiff's claims against defendants McGlothen, Welch, Crutchfield, and Croft are dismissed consistent with the recommendation by the Magistrate Judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
