Filed: Apr. 21, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 21, 2014
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION STEPHANIE K. BOWMAN, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff initiated this civil rights suit pro se, while incarcerated at the Pickaway Correctional Institution in Orient, Ohio. 1 On April 24, 2013, the undersigned reviewed Plaintiff's seventeen causes of action against five named Defendants under the screening standards of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) and 1915A. Following review, the undersigned recommended dismissal of the claims asserted in causes of action 2, 3, 6 and 8, of all cl
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION STEPHANIE K. BOWMAN, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff initiated this civil rights suit pro se, while incarcerated at the Pickaway Correctional Institution in Orient, Ohio. 1 On April 24, 2013, the undersigned reviewed Plaintiff's seventeen causes of action against five named Defendants under the screening standards of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) and 1915A. Following review, the undersigned recommended dismissal of the claims asserted in causes of action 2, 3, 6 and 8, of all cla..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
STEPHANIE K. BOWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff initiated this civil rights suit pro se, while incarcerated at the Pickaway Correctional Institution in Orient, Ohio.1 On April 24, 2013, the undersigned reviewed Plaintiff's seventeen causes of action against five named Defendants under the screening standards of 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e) and 1915A. Following review, the undersigned recommended dismissal of the claims asserted in causes of action 2, 3, 6 and 8, of all claims against Defendants Deters and Rinehart in their individual capacities, and of claims asserting criminal assault. The Court directed summons to issue for the remaining state and federal claims relating to the identification of Plaintiff as an informant. (Doc.14). That Report and Recommendation was adopted by the presiding District Judge on June 4, 2013. (Doc. 21).
Following completion of discovery, on February 26, 2014, the Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.2 (Doc. 32). When Plaintiff failed to file any timely response, he was directed to "show cause" why Defendants' motion should not be construed as unopposed and granted for the reasons stated. The deadline by which Plaintiff has directed to respond to the "show cause" order has now elapsed, with no response having been received.
II. Analysis
Pursuant to Rule 56(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., summary judgment "shall" be granted if the movant demonstrates that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." The undersigned has reviewed Defendants' motion in its entirety, together with the forty pages of exhibits offered in support of that motion. The motion is unopposed. Based upon the record before the undersigned, all remaining Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's remaining claims.
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 32) be GRANTED, that judgment be entered in favor of Defendants on all claims, and that this case be dismissed.
