Geer v. Ginocchio et al

Filing 8

DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING 4 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court certifies that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and denies leave to appeal in forma pauperis. All other pending motions (Doc. 7) are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 6/5/17. (gs) (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
WESTERN DIVISION
DOUGLAS GEER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JACQUELINE GINOCCHIO, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 1:17-cv-214
Judge Timothy S. Black
Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz

DECISION AND ENTRY
ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 4)
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 April 20, 2017, submitted a
Report and Recommendations. (Doc. 4). Plaintiff filed objections on May 30, 2017. 1
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
1

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objections and finds they are not well taken. Plaintiff’s
objections request that he be permitted to amend his complaint by adding the city of Cincinnati
as a defendant. However, as the Report and Recommendations explains, adding the city as a
defendant does not rectify the complaint’s failure to claim that any of the alleged constitutional
violations listed in the complaint were pursuant to a “policy statement, ordinance, regulation or
decision officially adopted and promulgated” by the city. (Doc. 4, at 6 (quoting Aladimi v.
Hamilton Cnty. Justice Ctr., No. 1:09cv398, 2012 WL 292587, at *7 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 1, 2012)
(Bowman, M.J.)). The objections also do not refute the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning for
recommending dismissal of all claims against the individual defendants in this case.
1

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 entirety. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1)

Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1916(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1). The Clerk shall
enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case shall be TERMINATED
from the docket of this Court;

2)

The Court certifies that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal of
this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore Plaintiff is
denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

3)

All other pending motions (Doc. 7) are DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 6/5/17

______________________
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge

2