Brown v. Mohr et al

Filing 113

ORDER finding as moot 72 Motion ; finding as moot 73 Motion ; denying 78 Motion ; denying 79 Motion to Dismiss; terminating 82 Motion for Order to; denying 90 Motion for Sanctions; finding as moot 94 Motion to Stay; finding as moo t 94 Motion ; finding as moot 95 Motion ; denying 102 Motion ; adopting Report and Recommendations re 109 Report and Recommendations.. Signed by Senior Judge Peter C. Economus on 3/11/2015. (ds)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.) (CORRECTED ORDER - CASE STILL OPEN0 Modified on 3/11/2015 (ds).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
STEVEN S. BROWN,

Case No. 2:13-cv-006

Plaintiff,

Judge Peter C. Economus

v.
DIRECTOR MOHR, et al.,

Magistrate Judge Kemp

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Magistrate Judge Terrence P. Kemp’s
Report & Recommendation (“R & R”). (ECF No. 109.) The Magistrate Judge recommended that
the motion for an order to protect plaintiff’s legal papers (ECF No. 64 as supplemented by ECF
No. 72 and 73) be denied as moot. Further, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the motions
for an entry of default (ECF No. 78), to dismiss (ECF No. 79), for sanctions (ECF No. 90), and
to supplement (ECF No. 95 and 102) be denied and that the motion to stay a decision on the
motion to dismiss (ECF No. 94) be denied as moot. Finally, the Magistrate Judge recommended
that the Court decline to consider the issues raised in Mr. Brown’s motion for an order directing
defendants to debit his prison account for copies (ECF No. 82) and that this motion be removed
from this Court’s pending motions list.
No party has objected to the R & R and the time period for filing objections has past.
The R & R of the Magistrate Judge specifically advised the parties that failure to object to the R
& R within fourteen days 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.” (ECF No. 109 at 9.)

The Court has reviewed the R & R of the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b). Noting that no objections have been filed and that the time for filing such objections has
expired, the Court ADOPTS the R & R of the Magistrate Judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

2