Hobbs v. Faulkner et al

Filing 144

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOTION FOR SANCTIONS- Judge Barrett entered final judgment in this case on March 29, 2019, and Plaintiff appealed (ECF Nos. 75 , 76 , 77 ). That appeal remains pending before the Sixth Circuit in its Case No. 19-3303. Absent a reversal and remand from the circuit court, this Courts judgment remains final. Plaintiff erroneously argues the dismissal was without prejudice (Motion, ECF No. 142 , PageID 2057). In fact, both Magistrate Judge Reports and Recommendation s adopted by Judge Barrett recommended dismissal with prejudice. But regardless of whether the judgment was with or without prejudice, it was a final judgment; otherwise Plaintiff would not have been entitled. AsPlaintiff has been repeatedly told, so long as the appeal remains pending, this Court lacks jurisdiction to modify it. On that basis it is respectfully recommended that the Motion for Sanctions be denied. Objections to R&R due by 4/14/2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 3/31/2020. re 142 (kma)(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 AT CINCINNATI
RYAN D. HOBBS,
Plaintiff,

-

vs

:

Case No. 1:17-cv-441
District Judge Michael R. Barrett
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

-

DEREK FAULKNER, et al.,
Defendants.

:

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS

This pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for
Sanctions (ECF No. 142). In it Plaintiff seeks sanctions against the Defendants on the basis of
characterizations of Defendants’ conduct which the Court has repeatedly refused to accept. Asking
the Court to change its mind and modify its final judgment so as to impose sanctions is yet another
effort of Plaintiff to undermine the finality of this Court’s judgment.
Judge Barrett entered final judgment in this case on March 29, 2019, and Plaintiff appealed
(ECF Nos. 75, 76, 77). That appeal remains pending before the Sixth Circuit in its Case No. 193303. Absent a reversal and remand from the circuit court, this Court’s judgment remains final.
Plaintiff erroneously argues the dismissal was without prejudice (Motion, ECF No. 142, PageID
2057). In fact, both Magistrate Judge Reports and Recommendations adopted by Judge Barrett
recommended dismissal with prejudice. But regardless of whether the judgment was with or

1

without prejudice, it was a final judgment; otherwise Plaintiff would not have been entitled. As
Plaintiff has been repeatedly told, so long as the appeal remains pending, this Court lacks
jurisdiction to modify it.
On that basis it is respectfully recommended that the Motion for Sanctions be denied.

March 31, 2020.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with this Report
and Recommendations. Because this document is being served by mail, three days are added under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 6. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected to and shall be
accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. A party may respond to
another party’s objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to
make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal.

2