Buchanan v. Hamilton County Sheriff Dep

Filing 38

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 15 Report and Recommendations and 25 Report and Recommendations. With regard to the Report and Recommendation of October 22, 2010, plaintiff Buchanans claim alleging deliberate indifference to se rious medical needs against defendant Naphcare on May 18, 2010 (Claim 2) is permitted to proceed. Plaintiff Buchanans other claims against defendants Nahcare and Hamilton County Sheriffs Department are DISMISSED. Plaintiff Buchanans motion to add t o complaint (Doc. 9) is DENIED.With regard to the Report and Recommendation of December 1, 2010 (Doc. 25), plaintiff Roses claims against defendants Naphcare and Hamilton County Sheriffs Department are DISMISSED in their entirety. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(3) that an appeal of any Order adopting the Report and Recommendation will not be taken in good faith. Signed by Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott on 3/14/11. (wam1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Michael Buchanan, et. al., Plaintiff(s), vs. Hamilton County Sheriff Department, et. al., Defendant(s).

: : : : : : : : :

Case Number: 1:10cv503 Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott

ORDER This matter is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings and filed with this Court on October 22, 2010 a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) and on December 1, 2010 (Doc. 25) a Report and Recommendation. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed objections to such Report and Recommendations (Doc. 32). The Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does determine that such Recommendations should be adopted. With regard to the Report and Recommendation of October 22, 2010, plaintiff Buchanan's claim alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against defendant Naphcare on May 18, 2010 (Claim 2) is permitted to proceed. Plaintiff Buchanan's other claims against defendants Nahcare and Hamilton County Sheriff's Department are DISMISSED. Plaintiff Buchanan's motion to add to complaint (Doc. 9) is DENIED. With regard to the Report and Recommendation of December 1, 2010 (Doc. 25), plaintiff

Rose's claims against defendants Naphcare and Hamilton County Sheriff's Department are DISMISSED in their entirety. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(3) that an appeal of any Order adopting the Report and Recommendation will not be taken in good faith. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997). IT IS SO ORDERED.

___s/Susan J. Dlott___________ Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott United States District Court