Thomas v. McDowell et al

Filing 110

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 103 Report and Recommendations, DISMISSES the conspiracy claim and DISMISSES claims against defendants Cook, McDowell, and Gleen. Signed by Judge James L Graham on 10/17/12. (ds)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

SHAWN THOMAS,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:10-cv-152
Judge James L. Graham
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

v.

MR. McDOWELL, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of the September 25, 2012 Report and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, to whom this case was referred pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). (ECF No. 103.) Upon screening Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint under
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss
Plaintiff’s medical indifference and conspiracy claims for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and that Messrs. Cook, McDowell, and Gleen be dismissed as
Defendants.
The Report and Recommendation specifically advises Plaintiff that the failure to object to
the Report and Recommendation within fourteen days of the Report results in a “waiver of the
right to de novo review . . . by the District Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment
of the District Court.” (Report and Recommendation 11, ECF No. 103.) The time period for
filing objections to the Report and Recommendation has expired. Plaintiff has not objected to
the Report and Recommendation.

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation. Noting that no objections
have been filed and that the time for filing such objections has expired, the Court ADOPTS the
Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 103.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s conspiracy claim and his
claims against Defendants Cook, McDowell, and Gleen are DISMISSED for failure to state a
claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Plaintiff may proceed only on his excessive
force claims against Defendants Pennington, and Eitell, his retaliation claims against Defendants
Pennington and Eitell, and his Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim against
Defendant Young.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/ James L. Graham
James L. Graham
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Date: October 17, 2012

2