Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Baker v. Carnine, 1:19-cv-60. (2020)

Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio Number: infdco20200227866 Visitors: 8
Filed: Feb. 20, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 20, 2020
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 31) AND DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 6) AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (DOC. 24) AS MOOT MATTHEW W. McFARLAND , District Judge . The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz (Doc. 31), to whom this case is referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b), and noting that no objections have been filed thereto and that the time for filing such objections under Fed. R.
More

DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 31) AND DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 6) AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (DOC. 24) AS MOOT

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz (Doc. 31), to whom this case is referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and noting that no objections have been filed thereto and that the time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has expired, hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendations in its entirety. Accordingly, the Court rules as follows:

1. Defendants' Broo, McIlwain, and Stachowiak's motion to dismiss (Doc. 6) is DENIED as MOOT. 2. Defendant Carnine's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 24) is DENIED as MOOT to the extent it is directed towards the original or first amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer