Davis v. Amazon.com
Filing
22
ORDER ADOPTING 13 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does determine that s uch Recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, defendants motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Doc 6.) is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 7/22/2016. (jlw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Anthony Davis,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
Amazon.com,
Defendant(s).
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case Number: 1:15cv753
Judge Susan J. Dlott
ORDER
This matter 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 and filed with this Court on March 21, 2016 a Report and Recommendations (Doc.
13). Subsequently, the plaintiff filed objections to such Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14)
and the defendant filed a response to the objections (Doc. 15). Plaintiff filed additional
objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20) and defendants filed a response to the
additional objections (Doc. 21).
The Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and
considered de novo all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the
Court does determine that such Recommendation should be adopted.
Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) (Doc 6.) is GRANTED.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that an appeal of any Order adopting
the Report and Recommendation will not be taken in good faith and therefore denies plaintiff
leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Plaintiff remains free to apply to proceed in forma pauperis
in the Court of Appeals. See Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3D 800, 803 (6th Cir. 1999),
overruling in part Floyd v. United States Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274, 277 (6th Cir. 1997).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___s/Susan J. Dlott___________
Judge Susan J. Dlott
United States District Court
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?