Weatherford v. Sheriff Hamilton County et al

Filing 52

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 50 Report and Recommendation. The Court DISMISSES this case WITH PREJUDICE, and CERTIFIES that any appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 8/17/2011. (km1) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/18/2011: # 1 Certified Mail Receipt) (km1).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL WEATHERFORD,
Plaintiff,

vs.
HAMILTON COUNTY SHERIFF,
et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

NO. 1:09-CV-432

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (doc. 50), to which there were no
objections. For the reasons indicated herein, the Court ADOPTS and
AFFIRMS

the

Magistrate

Judge’s

Report

and

Recommendation

and

DISMISSES Plaintiff’s case WITH PREJUDICE.
On July 8, 2009, Plaintiff brought a pro se action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants deprived him
of medical care in violation of his constitutional rights (doc.
50). Defendants filed motions for summary judgment on Nov. 8, 2010
and Dec. 7, 2010, to which Plaintiff has not responded (Id.).

On

March 25, 2011, Plaintiff was granted an extension of time until
May 17, 2011 in which to respond to Defendants’ pending motions
(Id.).

On June 1, 2011, the Court ordered the Plaintiff to show

cause within 20 days why Defendants’ motions should not be granted
and the case dismissed. On June 13, 2011, Plaintiff was granted an

additional 30 days until July 11, 2011, in which to file a response
to Defendants’ pending motions for summary judgement.

Plaintiff

was warned that a failure to comply with the terms of the Order
would result in (i) a Report and Recommendation that Defendants’
motions be granted and this case dismissed, and (ii) a dismissal of
this action for failure to prosecute (Id.). To date, Plaintiff has
not filed a response to Defendants’ motions for summary judgment
(Id.).
The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff’s failure to
respond

to

Defendants’

motions

for

summary

judgment

warrants

dismissal of this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for
failure to prosecute (Id.).
Having reviewed this matter and noting no objections, the
Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation welltaken in all respects. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS
the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, DISMISSES the
case

WITH

PREJUDICE,

and

CERTIFIES

pursuant

to

28

U.S.C.

§

1915(a)(3) that any appeal of this Order would not be taken in good
faith.
SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 17, 2011

s/S. Arthur Spiegel
S. Arthur Spiegel
United States Senior District Judge

2