Durham v. Chief Bureau of Classification and Reception et al

Filing 154

AMENDED DECISION AND ENTRY: (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 137); (2) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS (Docs. 138, 139); AND (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. 121). Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 1/02/18. (jlm)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION ROY A. DURHAM, JR., Plaintiff, vs. ROB JEFFREYS, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : Case No. 1:13-cv-226 Judge Timothy S. Black Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz AMENDED DECISION AND ENTRY: 1 (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 137); (2) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (Docs. 138, 139); AND (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. 121) This case 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 filed with this Court, and, on March 14, 2017, submitted a Report and Recommendations. (Doc. 137). Objections to the Report and Recommendations were due by March 23, 2017. (Doc. 137 at 6; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)). On April 10, 2017, and April 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed objections. (“Objections”) (Docs. 138-139). 2 As required by 29 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all 1 On May 31, 2017, the Court put on an Order adopting the Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a), the Court enters this Amended Order to correctly reflect that this action remains open pending resolution of Plaintiff’s remaining claims. 2 Even if the Objections had been timely filed, they primarily restate arguments that were already addressed by the Magistrate Judge, namely, that Plaintiff has been denied access to the law library. The Court finds this argument to not be well-taken. As detailed in the Report and Recommendations, Plaintiff has had ample opportunity to pursue his claims and granting further leave to amend four years after this action was commenced would unduly prejudice Defendants. of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does determine that such Report and Recommendations should be and is hereby adopted in its entirety and Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendations are overruled. Accordingly: 1. The Report and Recommendations (Doc. 137) is ADOPTED; 2. Plaintiff’s Objections (Docs. 138, 139) are OVERRULED; and 3. Plaintiff’s second motion for leave of court to file a third amended complaint (Doc. 121) is DENIED. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1/2/18 Date: ____________ ________________________ ____________________ __________ ________ _ ___ __ Timothy S. Timothy S. Black h United States District Judge 3 To the extent Plaintiff’s motion requests an extension of time to file a supplemental brief in response to Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 121 at 1), this Court already granted Plaintiff such an extension and accepted his supplemental filings (Doc. 127). 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?