Hendricks v. Mohr et al

Filing 91

ORDER granting 83 Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 88 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution; adopting Report and Recommendations re 89 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge James L. Graham on 2/21/2019. (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 Benjamin Hendricks, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2:15-cv-3130 Gary Mohr, et al., Defendants. ORDER On January 10, 2019, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (Doc. 89) recommending that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 83) be granted. On January 28, 2019, the court entered an order directing plaintiff to file objections to the report and recommendation no later than February 19, 2019. The order advised plaintiff that the failure to file objections to the report and recommendation by that date would result in a waiver of the right to have this court review the report and recommendation de novo, and would operate as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of this court adopting the report and recommendation. Doc. 90. The time period for filing objections has expired, and no objections have been filed to the report and recommendation. The court agrees with the recommendation of the magistrate judge, and hereby adopts the report and recommendation (Doc. 89). Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 83) is granted. Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute (Doc. 88) is moot. The clerk is directed to enter final judgment in favor of defendants John Gardner, Andrew Eddy, Arthur Hale and Anthony Ayres. It is so ordered. Date: February 21, 2019 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?