Abessolo v. Smith et al

Filing 33

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 26 Report and Recommendations, denying as moot 11 Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Lisa Danielle, Sara Sams, denying as moot 12 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Defend ants Mark Sauer, Joni Stafford, Majorie Davis, Rhiannon Hartwell, Sara Smith, Mary Ayoki, denying 13 Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, granting 18 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction filed by Defendants Li sa Danielle, Sara Sams, granting 19 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Defendants Mark Sauer, Joni Stafford, Majorie Davis, Rhiannon Hartwell, Sara Smith, Mary Ayoki. This matter is CLOSED on the Court's docket. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 5/2/2012. (km1) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/2/2012: # 1 Certified Mail Receipt) (km1).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
FRANCOIS ABESSOLO,
Plaintiff,
v.
SARA SMITH, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

NO. 1:11-CV-00680

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (doc. 26), Plaintiff’s objections thereto
(doc. 28), and Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s objections
(docs. 31 & 32).

In her Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate

Judge recommends that Defendants’ first two motions to dismiss
(docs. 11 & 12) be denied; that Plaintiff’s motion for default
judgment (doc. 13) be denied; and that Defendants Sams and Daniel’s
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (doc. 18)
and the County Defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. 19) be granted.
As required by 29 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has reviewed the comprehensive
analysis of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all of the
filings in this matter.

Upon thorough consideration of the

foregoing, the Court finds Plaintiff’s objections unpersuasive and
determines that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is
thorough, well-reasoned and correct.

1

Consequently, the Court

ADOPTS and AFFIRMS it in its entirety.

Accordingly, Defendants’

first two motions to dismiss (docs. 11 & 12) are DENIED as moot;
Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (doc. 13) is DENIED;
Defendants Sams and Daniel’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction (doc. 18) is GRANTED; the County Defendants’
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (doc. 19) is
GRANTED; and this matter is closed from the Court’s docket.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 2, 2012

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

2