Brooks v. Potter et al

Filing 32

ORDER ADOPTING the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 28 30 in that the 22 23 Motions to Dismiss Defendants Mary Potter and Michelle Miller are GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Gregory L Frost on 12/12/13. (sem1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
GORDON BROOKS,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:13-cv-0507
Judge Gregory L. Frost
Magistrate Judge King

v.
MARY POTTER, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER

Plaintiff Gordon Brooks is an incarcerated state inmate who brought this action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against four employees of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.
This matter is before the Court for consideration of:
1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation filed on October 31, 2013, in
which the Magistrate Judge recommended that the motions to dismiss of Defendants
Mary Potter (ECF No. 22) and Michele Miller (ECF No. 23) be granted; and
2. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation filed on November 22, 2013, in
which the Magistrate Judge recommended that the claims against the remaining
Defendants be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to effect service of process and that
this action be dismissed.
(ECF Nos. 28 and 30.)
In each Report and Recommendation referenced above, the Magistrate Judge specifically
advised that the failure to object to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen days of the
date of the Report results in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and a
waiver of the right to appeal the District Court’s decision adopting the Report and
1

Recommendation. (ECF No. 28 at PageID# 182-83; ECF No. 30 at PageID# 185-86.) The time
period for filing objections to each Report and Recommendation has expired. Plaintiff has not
objected to either Report and Recommendation.
The Court has reviewed each Report and Recommendation filed by the Magistrate Judge.
Noting that no objections have been filed and the time for filing such objections has expired, the
Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 28) that the motions to dismiss of
Defendants Potter and Miller be granted and also ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 30) that the remaining Defendants be dismissed and this action be dismissed.
Accordingly, this Court GRANTS the motions to dismiss of Defendants Potter and Miller (ECF
Nos. 22 and 23), DISMISSES all claims against the remaining Defendants, and HEREBY
DISMISSES this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Gregory L. Frost
GREGORY L. FROST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2