Norris v. Mehter et al

Filing 27

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 26 Report and Recommendation, denying 18 Defendant City of Cincinnati's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 4/3/2014. (km1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL NORRIS,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,

vs.

ARIFF MEHTER, et al.,
Defendants.

No. 1:13-cv-00048

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the March 10, 2014
Report

and

Recommendation

(doc.

26)

of

Magistrate

Judge

Stephanie K. Bowman, to which there has been no objection.
The procedural and factual backgrounds of this case
are well-detailed in the Magistrate Judge’s most recent Report,
and the Court will not reiterate them here.

In brief, however,

remaining Defendant the City of Cincinnati has filed a motion to
dismiss (doc. 18) Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (doc. 16), which
Plaintiff

has

opposed

(doc.

24).

The

Magistrate

Judge

has

reported that, even though “relatively few factual allegations”
underpin Plaintiff’s claims, she “do[es] not find the claims to
be

so

conclusory—or

the

material

facts

so

undisputed—that

Plaintiff’s complaint [be] subject to dismissal for failure to
state a claim either on the pleadings, or in consideration of
the single exhibit offered by Defendant in support of its motion
1

to dismiss” (see doc. 26 at ll).

She recommends, therefore,

that Plaintiff be entitled to proceed with discovery and that,
upon completion of discovery, Defendant re-file its motion under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 if, at that juncture, it believes there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and that it is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.

To this end, the Magistrate

Judge also recommends that Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss
be denied.
Proper notice of this Report and Recommendation was
provided to the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b), including the advice that they would waive
further appeal if they failed to file an objection in a timely
manner.1

As recited above, no objections were filed.

reviewed

this

matter

pursuant

to

28

U.S.C.

§

Having

636(b)(1),

we

conclude that the March 10, 2014 Report and Recommendation by
Magistrate Judge Bowman (doc. 26) is thorough, well-reasoned and
correct.

Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS, ADOPTS AND AFFIRMS it.

Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
by Defendant the City of Cincinnati (doc. 18) is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 3, 2014

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

1

See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); United States v.
Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).
2