Geary v. UC Health et al

Filing 28

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 23 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Fraud and Negligence Claims in Second Amended Complaint. It is RECOMMENDED that this motion be DENIED AS MOOT. Objections to R&R due by 4/7/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 3/21/2014. (km1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

HEATHER GEARY,

Case No. 1:13-cv-300
Plaintiffs,

Dlott, J.
Bowman, M.J.

v.

UC HEALTH, et al.,
Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff initiated this litigation pro se on May 6, 2013.

On May 29, 2013,

Defendants Drake Center and UC Health moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Defendants withdrew that motion as moot when, after obtaining counsel, Plaintiff filed
an amended complaint on June 14, 2013.

(Docs. 13, 15).

Subsequently, Plaintiff

sought and was granted leave to file a second amended complaint. (Docs. 20, 21). On
January 24, 2014, Defendants moved to dismiss two of the claims included in Plaintiff’s
second amended complaint: specifically, claims for fraud and negligence. (Doc. 23).
On March 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Notice of her agreement to strike or withdraw her
fraud and negligence claims against the Defendants. (Doc. 27).
Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT:
In light of Plaintiff’s withdrawal of her fraud or negligence claims, Defendants’
motion to dismiss those two claims (Doc. 23) should be denied as moot.

s/Stephanie K. Bowman
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
HEATHER GEARY,

Case No. 1:13-cv-300
Plaintiffs,

Dlott, J.
Bowman, M.J.

v.

UC HEALTH, et al.,
Defendants.

NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections to this Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of
the filing date of this R&R. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely
motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s)
of the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support
of the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within FOURTEEN
(14) DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections.

Failure to make

objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

2