England et al v. Schrand

Filing 32

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Defendants 24 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court CERTIFIES that for the foregoing reasons an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith and therefore deny plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. This case is DISMISSED AND TERMINATED on the docket of this Court. Signed by Judge Herman J. Weber on 2/27/13. (lk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

TISHA ENGLAND, et al.,
Plaintiffs
v.

C-1-11-93

POLICE OFFICER RYAN SCHRAND,
Defendant
ORDER
This

matter

is

before

the

Court

upon

the

Report

and

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 28) and
plaintiff’s objections thereto (doc. no. 29) and defendant’s response (doc.
no. 30). The Magistrate Judge concluded that defendant is entitled to
qualified immunity on plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims.

The

Magistrate Judge, therefore, recommended that defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (doc. no. 24) be granted.
Plaintiff objects to the Judge's Report and Recommendation on the
grounds that his findings are contrary to law.

2
CONCLUSION
Upon a de novo review of the record, especially in light of plaintiff=s
objections, the Court finds that plaintiff=s objections have either been
adequately addressed and properly disposed of by the Judge or present
no particularized arguments that warrant specific responses by this
Court. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge has accurately set forth
the controlling principles of law and properly applied them to the
particular facts of this case and agrees with the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS AND INCORPORATES BY
REFERENCE HEREIN the Report and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 28). Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (doc. no. 24) is GRANTED.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court CERTIFIES that for the
foregoing reasons an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and
Recommendation would not be taken in good faith and therefore deny
plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Plaintiff remains free to apply
to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. See Callihan v.

3

Schneider, 178 F .3d 800, 803 (6th Cir. 1999), overruling in part Floyd v.
United States Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274, 277 (6th Cir. 1997).
This case is DISMISSED AND TERMINATED on the docket of this
Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Herman J. Weber
Herman J. Weber, Senior Judge
United States District Court