Hodge v. Burkhart et al

Filing 35

ORDER: 1. The Report and Recommendation issued by Judge Wehrman [R. 34 ] is ADOPTED as and for the Opinion of the Court; 2. The remaining claims in Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint are DISMISSED; 3. Any pending motions are DENIED, AS MOOT; and 4. This action is STRICKEN from the Court's active docket. Signed by Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove on 01/05/2017.(KJA)cc: COR, mailed paper copy to pro se filer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LONDON
DOUGLAS M. HODGE,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
KEN CASTEEL,
Defendant.

****

****

Civil Action No. 15-CV-105-GFVT

ORDER

****

****

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation issued December 9,
2016, by United States Magistrate Judge J. Gregory Wehrman. [R. 34.] By way of this Report
and Recommendation, Judge Wehrman recommends dismissing the above-styled action due to
Plaintiff Douglas M. Hodge’s failure to respond to multiple Court orders. [Id.]
Hodge, who is proceeding pro se, initially filed this prisoner civil rights action against
various individuals affiliated with the Harlan County Detention Center. After the Court’s initial
screening of Hodge’s complaint, only the claims against Defendant Ken Casteel in his individual
capacity survived. [R. 12.] Mr. Casteel answered the complaint and propounded discovery
requests according to schedule. Mr. Hodge, however, never responded to Casteel’s discovery
requests, even after being given an extension of time to do so. [See R. 21; R. 25.] Subsequently,
Mr. Casteel filed a motion to compel, and the Court issued a show cause order directing Mr.
Hodge to file an explanation for his lack of response by November 28, 2016. [See R. 32; R. 33.]
Hodge did not respond to the Court’s show cause order, nor has he filed objections to
Judge Wehrman’s Report and Recommendation during the requisite time period. [See R. 34 at 2

(explaining the appropriate objection procedure).] Generally, this Court must make a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are
made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). When no objections are made, as in this case, the Court is not
required to “review . . . a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other
standard.” See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151 (1985). Further, parties who fail to object to a
magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation are also barred from appealing a district court’s
order adopting that Report and Recommendation. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th
Cir. 1981).
Despite Mr. Hodge’s lack of objections, the Court has fully reviewed the record and
Judge Wehrman’s Report and Recommendation. In light of Mr. Hodge’s repeated failure to
comply with the Court’s orders and the multiple warnings issued to Mr. Hodge to encourage his
compliance, it agrees with Judge Wehrman’s recommendation to dismiss the action.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation issued by Judge Wehrman [R. 34] is ADOPTED
as and for the Opinion of the Court;
2. The remaining claims in Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint are
DISMISSED;
3. Any pending motions are DENIED, AS MOOT; and
4. This action is STRICKEN from the Court’s active docket.

2

This the 5th day of January, 2017.

3