Clark v. Burke et al
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 21 ). Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 1/27/2017. (mr)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
DANIEL BURKE, et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-547
Judge Timothy S. Black
Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz
DECISION AND ENTRY
ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 21)
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 January 10, 2017, submitted a
Report and Recommendations. (Doc. 21). No objections were filed.
As required by 28 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
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
1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their
official capacities (Doc. 10) is GRANTED;
2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s excessive use of force claim against
Defendants in their individual capacities (Doc. 10) is DENIED;
3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims set forth in Plaintiff’s Amended
Claim Form (Revised) (Doc. 19) is DENIED as MOOT; and
4. Plaintiff’s claim for deliberate indifference to medical needs is DISMISSED
for failure to state a claim for relief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge
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?