Long v. Mohr et al

Filing 43

ORDER ADOPTING 42 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 23 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, filed by Louk, Willinham, Shaefer, Mona Parks, Rannes, Beard, Varner, J Glispie, Harley, Berchtold, Patterson, Portis, Eddy, Brunsmen, Magnuson, Lyon # 1, Pfaff, Richard, Wilson, Plantz, Neininger, Lyon # 2, Gary Mohr, Conley, Yost, Elliott Neufeld,. Signed by Judge Gregory L. Frost on 4/19/16. (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
MARK M. LONG,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:15-cv-1616
JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST
Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King

v.
GARY MOHR, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s March 29,
2016 Order and Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 42.) In that filing, the Magistrate
Judge recommended that the Court grant in part and deny in part the October 19, 2015 Motion to
Dismiss of Served Defendants. (ECF No. 23.) Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommended
that the Court deny the motion in regard to Defendants Eddy, Yost, Rannes, Neufeld, Oppy,
Magnuson, and Curtiss in connection with Plaintiff’s claim for the denial of medical and dental
care. The Magistrate Judge also recommended that this Court then grant the motion to dismiss in
all other respects.
The Order and Report and Recommendation advised the parties that the failure to file a
timely objection would “result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge
and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court.” (ECF No. 42, at Page ID #
316.) No objections have been filed, the time for filing objections has expired, and the
Magistrate Judge’s reasoning is correct. The Court therefore ADOPTS the Order and Report
and Recommendation (ECF No. 42), DENIES the motion to dismiss in regard to Defendants

Eddy, Yost, Rannes, Neufeld, Oppy, Magnuson, and Curtiss in connection with Plaintiff’s claim
for the denial of medical and dental care (ECF No. 23), and GRANTS the motion in all other
respects (Id.).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Gregory L. Frost
GREGORY L. FROST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2