Hunter v. Hamilton County et al
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
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
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
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?