GALLANT v. AHMED, 1:14cv199. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20150112937
Visitors: 4
Filed: Jan. 09, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 09, 2015
Summary: ORDER SUSAN J. DLOTT, District Judge. This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings and filed with this Court on November 17, 2014 a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 44). Subsequently, the plaintiff filed objections to such Report and Recommendation (Doc.
Summary: ORDER SUSAN J. DLOTT, District Judge. This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings and filed with this Court on November 17, 2014 a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 44). Subsequently, the plaintiff filed objections to such Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5..
More
ORDER
SUSAN J. DLOTT, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings and filed with this Court on November 17, 2014 a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 44). Subsequently, the plaintiff filed objections to such Report and Recommendation (Doc. 50) and defendants filed a reply to the objections (Doc. 58).
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 Recommendation should be adopted.
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion lacks merit and is not well-taken, therefore, plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 24) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
