Barnes v. Morgan et al

Filing 45

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation 39 ; ruling on all pending motions. Case is Dismissed and Terminated on the docket of this Court. Signed by Judge Herman J. Weber on 3/14/12. (Attachments: # 1 cert.recpt) (do1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

DANIEL C. BARNES, JR.,
Plaintiff
v.

C-1-11-380

DON MORGAN, et al.,
Defendants

This matter is before the Court upon the Order and Report and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 39),
plaintiff’s objections (doc. nos. 41 and 42) and defendants’ response
(doc. no. 44). Simultaneously with his objections, plaintiff filed a Motion
for an Extension (doc. no. 43) concerning “Document 38” in case of the
“objections” not reaching the Court on time. The Magistrate Judge ‘s
Order and Report and Recommendation was filed on January 18, 2012,
received by plaintiff on January 20, 2012, and the plaintiff’s objections
were timely filed with this Court on January 25, 2012. Plaintiff’s Motion
for Extension (doc. no. 43) is DENIED as moot.

2
The Magistrate Judge denied plaintiff’s Motions for Discovery (doc.
nos. 15 and 32), plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (doc. no. 16),
defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery (doc. no. 36) and recommended that
plaintiff’s Motions for Injunctive Relief (doc. nos. 9 and 17) be DENIED;
plaintiff’s Motions to Amend (doc. nos. 18, 25 and 31) be DENIED;
plaintiff’s Motion for Default (doc. no. 29) be DENIED; defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss (doc. no. 27) be GRANTED and plaintiff’s Complaint be
dismissed.
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's Orders as being clearly
erroneous and to her Report and Recommendation on the grounds that
her findings and recommendations are contrary to law.
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

3
the controlling principles of law and properly applied them to the
particular facts of this case and agrees with the Judge.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS AND INCORPORATES BY
REFERENCE HEREIN the Order and Report and Recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 39). The Magistrate Judge’s
Orders are AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s Motions for Injunctive Relief (doc. nos.
9 and 17) are DENIED; plaintiff’s Motions to Amend (doc. nos. 18, 25 and
31) are DENIED; plaintiff’s Motion for Default (doc. no. 29) is DENIED;
defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (doc. no. 27) is GRANTED and plaintiff’s
Complaint is dismissed.
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