Hunter v. Hamilton County et al

Filing 23

ORDER ADOPTING 22 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION granting 12 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 9/29/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Certified Mail Receipt) (ba1)

Hunter v. Hamilton County et al

Doc. 23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT S O U TH E R N DISTRICT OF OHIO W E S TE R N DIVISION

L e o n a rd Hunter, P la in t if f , v. H a m ilto n County, Ohio, et al., D e fe n d a n t s . J U D G E MICHAEL R. BARRETT C A S E NO. 1:09-cv-234-MRB-TSH

O RDER Th is matter is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation filed by M a g is tra te Judge Hogan (Doc. 22) as to Defendant Simon Leis, Jr.'s Motion For J u d g m e n t On The Pleadings (Doc. 12). Plaintiff has filed objections to the Magistrate J u d g e 's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22). When objections are received to a magistrate judge's Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n on a dispositive matter the assigned district judge "must determine d e novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). After review, the district judge "may accept, reject, or m o d ify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to th e magistrate judge with instructions." Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). General o b je c tio n s are insufficient to preserve issues for review; "[a] general objection to the e n tire ty of the magistrate's report has the same effects as would a failure to object." Howard v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1 9 9 1 ). A s to the Plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation, the Court

Dockets.Justia.com

fin d s that his filing does not raise a specific objection but instead is general in nature a n d merely restates his prior arguments. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to preserve this is s u e for review. Id. Despite Plaintiff's failure to specifically object, the Court has reviewed this m a tte r de novo pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and finds the Magistrate Judge's Report a n d Recommendation to be correct and well reasoned. Plaintiff has failed to raise any fa c tu a l issues or case law to support his proposition that Simon Leis is responsible for h is medical problems thereby failing to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Not only has Plaintiff failed to show that Leis violated the Eighth Amendment by s h o w in g deliberate indifference to a "substantial risk of serious harm," Farmer v. B re n n a n , 511 U.S. 825, 828 (1994), all actions alleged in Plaintiff's complaint and p le a d in g s were performed while Leis was entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified im m u n ity protects government officials performing discretionary functions "from liability fo r civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory o r constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitz g e ra ld , 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) of th e Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. Defendant's Motion For Judgment On Th e Pleadings (Doc. 12) is hereby GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. s /M ic h a e l R. Barrett UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2