White v. Dillow, 1:19-cv-33. (2020)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20200224c32
Visitors: 2
Filed: Feb. 21, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 29) TIMOTHY S. BLACK , District Judge . This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court, and on January 28, 2020, submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 29). No objections were filed. As required by 28 U.S.C. 63
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 29) TIMOTHY S. BLACK , District Judge . This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court, and on January 28, 2020, submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 29). No objections were filed. As required by 28 U.S.C. 636..
More
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 29)
TIMOTHY S. BLACK, District Judge.
This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court, and on January 28, 2020, submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 29). 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 (Doc. 29) should be and is hereby ADOPTED in its entirety.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above:
1) The Interested Party State of Ohio's motion to dismiss (Doc. 15) is GRANTED;
2) Plaintiff's claims against the "Correctional Officers" are DISMISSED; and
3) Defendant Dillow's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 18) is GRANTED in part so as to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Dillow in his official capacity; and
4) Defendant Dillow's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 18) is DENIED in part as to Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Dillow, in his individual capacity, for excessive use of force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, which claim may proceed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
