Helfinstine v. Lawless, 1:18-cv-679. (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20190618e84
Visitors: 14
Filed: Jun. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 17, 2019
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 25) TIMOTHY S. BLACK , District Judge . This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on May 2, 2019, submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 25). No objections were filed. As required by 28 U.S.C. 636(b)
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 25) TIMOTHY S. BLACK , District Judge . This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on May 2, 2019, submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 25). No objections were filed. As required by 28 U.S.C. 636(b) a..
More
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 25)
TIMOTHY S. BLACK, District Judge.
This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on May 2, 2019, submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 25). 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 the Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby ADOPTED in its entirety.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above:
1. Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction (Doc. 20) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
