Bloodworth v. Timmerman-Cooper et al

Filing 75

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 58 Motion to Dismiss; adopting Report and Recommendations re 72 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiffs claims against defendant Debora Timmerman-Cooper are DISMISSED; plaintiffs remaining equal protect ion claims (Counts V, VII, VIII, X and XIV) are DISMISSED; and the retaliation claim in Count XVI and plaintiffs request for injunctive relief demanding his return to the London Correctional Institution are DISMISSED. In all other respects, defendants motion to dismiss isDENIED. Signed by Judge Algenon L. Marbley on 2/13/2012. (cw)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION RONALD BLOODWORTH, Plaintiff, vs. Civil Action 2:10-CV-1121 Judge Marbley Magistrate Judge King WARDEN DEBORA A. TIMMERMAN-COOPER, et al., Defendant. ORDER On January 19, 2012, the United states Magistrate Judge recommended that defendants’ motion to dismiss, Doc. No. 58, be granted in part and denied in part. Order and Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 72. Although the parties were advised of their right to object to the recommendation, and of the consequences of their failure to do so, there has nevertheless been no objection. The Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 72, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Doc. No. 58, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. In particular, plaintiff’s claims against defendant Debora Timmerman-Cooper are DISMISSED; plaintiff’s remaining equal protection claims (Counts V, VII, VIII, X and XIV) are DISMISSED; and the retaliation claim in Count XVI and plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief demanding his return to the London Correctional Institution are DISMISSED. In all other respects, defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED. s/Algenon L. Marbley Algenon L. Marbley United States District Judge

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?