Long v. Mohr et al

Filing 34

ORDER denying 14 Motion for Review of Ruling. Signed by Judge Gregory L. Frost on 12/4/15. (kn)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

MARK M. LONG,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action 2:15-cv-1616
Judge Frost
Magistrate Judge King

DOCTOR EDDY, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiff included a jury demand in the civil cover sheet filed
in this action, Civil Cover Sheet (ECF No. 1-1, PAGEID# 17), and the
docket indicates that a jury demand was made. On July 22, 2015,
plaintiff filed a motion “requesting to revise the complaint if the
file date of 5-6-15 will remain the file date after filing the revised
complaint. . . .” Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint (ECF No. 8).
Noting that plaintiff had not included a copy of the proposed revised
complaint and finding that “the purpose of the amendment is not
entirely clear from his motion,” Order and Report and Recommendation
(ECF. No. 11), the United States Magistrate Judge denied the motion
“without prejudice to renewal upon the tender of the proposed amended
complaint.” Id., PAGEID# 45 (emphasis omitted). This matter is now
before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to reconsider that ruling.
Motion for Review of Ruling (ECF No. 14).

1

The Motion for Review of Ruling makes clear that, in filing the
Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint, plaintiff intended only to make a
jury demand. As noted supra, however, plaintiff included a jury demand
in the Civil Cover Sheet, and the docket indicates that a jury demand
has been made.
Because the order of the Magistrate Judge, Order and Report and
Recommendation, is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, see
28 U.S.C. §636(b), the Motion for Review of Ruling (ECF No. 14), is
DENIED.

/s/ GREGORY L. FROST
Gregory L. Frost
United States District Judge

2