Hargrove v. Frisby et al
ORDER ADOPTING 10 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Accordingly, plaintiffs complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1) with the exception of plaintiffs Fourth Amendment individual capacit y claim against defendants Frisby and Couch and plaintiffs First Amendment individual capacity Free Exercise claim and, to the extent it seeks injunctive relief, plaintiffs Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) claim against defendants Chaplain Taylor and Chaplain Palmer. Plaintiffs motion to add a defendant (Doc. 7) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 2/8/2018. (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
Daniel P. Hargrove,
Capt. Frisby, et al.,
Case Number: 1:17cv748
Judge Susan J. Dlott
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Stephanie K. Bowman filed on January 11, 2018 (Doc. 10), to whom this case was referred pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §636(b), and noting that no objections have been filed thereto and that the time for filing
such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) expired January 25, 2018, hereby ADOPTS said Report and
Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1) with the exception of plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment
individual capacity claim against defendants Frisby and Couch and plaintiff’s First Amendment
individual capacity Free Exercise claim and, to the extent it seeks injunctive relief, plaintiff’s Religious
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) claim against defendants Chaplain Taylor and
Plaintiff’s motion to add a defendant (Doc. 7) is DENIED.
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?