FISHER v. SCHWEITZER, 1:16-cv-604. (2016)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20160926513
Visitors: 2
Filed: Aug. 03, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 03, 2016
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 5) TIMOTHY S. BLACK , District Judge . This case 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 filed with this Court and, on July 6, 2016, submitted a Report and
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 5) TIMOTHY S. BLACK , District Judge . This case 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 filed with this Court and, on July 6, 2016, submitted a Report and R..
More
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 5)
TIMOTHY S. BLACK, District Judge.
This case 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 filed with this Court and, on July 6, 2016, submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 5). No objections were filed.
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, Petitioner's claims against Defendant Inst. Inspector L. Austin (Doc. 1-1) are DISMISSED with prejudice. Defendant Austin is DISMISSED as a party to this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
