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.)
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?