Zhang v. Clevenger et al
Filing
37
Order Adopting 36 Report and Recommendation. It is therefore ordered that (1)defendant Clevenger's motion for leave to file an answer 34 is denied as moot;(2) entry of default 33 is vacated and set aside as to defendant Clevenger; (3) the motion for default judgment 32 against defendant Clevenger is denied; and (4)the motion for default judgment 32 is granted as to defendant Byers. Judge Lesley Wells(C,KA)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
-----------------------------------------------------YANG ZHANG,
Plaintiff,
-vs-
NICOLE CLEVENGER, et al.,
.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CASE NO. 1:15 CV 0720
ORDER ADOPTING THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE LESLEY WELLS
Before the Court is the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Kenneth S. McHargh. The Magistrate Judge recommends that (1) defendant
Clevenger’s motion for leave to file an answer be denied as moot; (2) entry of default be
vacated and set aside as to defendant Clevenger; (3) the motion for default judgment
against defendant Clevenger be denied; and (4) the motion for default judgment be
granted as to defendant Byers.
Because no timely objections to the R&R have been filed pursuant to Local Rule
72.3, the R&R is adopted in its entirety by this Court. It is therefore ordered that (1)
defendant Clevenger’s motion for leave to file an answer (doc. 34) is denied as moot;
(2) entry of default (doc. 33) is vacated and set aside as to defendant Clevenger; (3) the
motion for default judgment (doc. 32) against defendant Clevenger is denied; and (4)
the motion for default judgment (doc. 32) is granted as to defendant Byers.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Lesley Wells
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: 4 August 2015
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?