Robison v. Coey et al

Filing 78

ORDER granting 61 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting Report and Recommendations re 76 Report and Recommendations.. Signed by Judge James L. Graham on 3/2/2017. (ds)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION David A. Robison, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2:15-cv-944 Woody Coey, et al., Defendants. ORDER This matter is before the court for consideration of the report and recommendation filed by the magistrate judge on February 2, 2017. The magistrate judge recommended that defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the initial retaliation claim contained in the original complaint be granted. The report and recommendation specifically advised the parties that objections to the report and recommendation were due within fourteen days, and that the failure to object to the report and recommendation “will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation.” 76, p. 19. Doc. The time period for filing objections to the report and recommendation has expired, and no objections to the report and recommendation have been filed. The report and recommendation (Doc. 76) is adopted. For the reasons set forth in the report and recommendation, the motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s initial retaliation claim (Doc. 61) is granted. The motion for summary judgment (Doc. 77) on the additional retaliation claim advanced in the amended complaint remains pending. It is so ordered. Date: March 2, 2017 s/James L. Graham James L. Graham United States District Judge 2

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?