Smith v. State of Ohio Rehabilitation and Corrections et al

Filing 5

ORDER adopting 3 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Gregory L. Frost on 5/7/15. (kn)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JAMES SMITH, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:15-cv-1272 JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers v. STATE OF OHIO REHABILITATION AND CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. ORDER This matter is before the Court for consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s April 17, 2015 Order and Initial Screen Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 3.) In that filing, the Magistrate Judge conducted an initial screen under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and recommended that the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections and Madison Correctional Institution because they are both entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit for monetary damages. (Id. at Page ID # 49-50.) The Order and Initial Screen Report and Recommendation specifically advised the parties that a failure to file a timely objection would waive the right to de novo review by the undersigned and would waive the right to appeal the judgment of this Court. No objections have been filed, and the time for filing objections has expired. This Court has reviewed the Order and Initial Screen Report and Recommendation and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning. The Court therefore ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 3) and DISMISSES the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections and Madison Correctional Institution from this action. The claims against Officer Herren remain pending. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Gregory L. Frost GREGORY L. FROST 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?