Durham v. Niffenegger et al

Filing 121

ENTRY AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. 105) AND DENYING DEFENDANT HOLLOPETER'S MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 94 ): The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant Hollopeter's Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process (Doc. 94 ). IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Matthew W. McFarland on 03/03/2022. (kaf)

IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI

DAVID DURHAM,

Case No. 1:18-cv-91

Plaintiff,

Judge Matthew W. McFarland

vs.

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz

DETECTIVE JERRY NIFFENEGGER,
et al.,
Defendants.

ENTRY AND ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. 105) AND
DENYING DEFENDANT HOLLOPETER'S MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 94)

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendations of United States
Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz (Doc. 105), to whom this case is 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) has expired, hereby ADOPTS said
Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant
Hollopeter's Motion to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process (Doc. 94).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
By

~
vf,7Jv';]4!
JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND