Ford v. Alexander et al

Filing 70

Memorandum Opinion and Order adopting the Magistrate Judge's 69 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's Federal claims are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's claims against the unnamed John and Jane Doe Defendants are dismissed without prejudice. The Court declines to accept supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining State law claims, and dismisses these claims without prejudice. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 3/12/2013. (S,L)

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JARRITT R. FORD,
Plaintiff,
v.
DREW ALEXANDER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 5:11cv575

JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND
ORDER [Regarding ECF No. 69]

On February 22, 2013, Magistrate Judge Kathleen B. Burke issued a Report (“R&R”)
recommending that pro se Plaintiff Ford’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 28) be
denied, and that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 42) be granted, thereby
dismissing Plaintiff’s Federal claims with prejudice. ECF No. 69. The R&R also recommended
that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against the unnamed John and Jane Doe Defendants
without prejudice and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining
State law claims, and dismiss those claims without prejudice. ECF No. 69 at 29.
The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to conduct a de novo review only of
those portions of a report and recommendation to which the parties have made an objection. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Parties must file any objections to a report and recommendation within
14 days of service. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 72(b)(2). Failure to object within this time waives a
party’s right to appeal the district court’s judgment. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 145 (1985);
United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). Absent objection, a district court
may adopt a magistrate judge’s report without review. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149.

(5:11cv575)
In the instant case, objections to the R&R were due by March 8, 2013. Plaintiff has not
filed an objection. The Court finds that the R&R is supported by the record, and agrees with the
magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R (ECF No. 69) in its entirety. Plaintiff’s Federal
claims are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff’s claims against the unnamed John and Jane Doe
Defendants are dismissed without prejudice. The Court declines to accept supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining State law claims, and dismisses these claims without
prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 12, 2013
Date

/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge

2