Gilmore v. Hictchens et al

Filing 50

ORDER adopting and affirming 36 & 43 Reports and Recommendations; overruling Plaintiff's objections; denying as moot 49 Motion to Add Evidence to Prove Merits in Misuse of Force. Signed by Judge George C. Smith on 12/20/2016. (kk)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification [Sean Anthony Gilmore, #721-420 @ North Central Correctional Institution, PO Box 1812, Marion OH 43302])

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
SEAN ANTHONY GILMORE,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No.: 2:16-cv-395
JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH
Magistrate Judge Jolson

SHANDAN HITCHENS, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
On October 12, 2016 and November 1, 2016, the United States Magistrate Judge issued
Orders and Reports and Recommendations (see Docs. 36 and 43). Plaintiff has filed objections
to the Reports and Recommendations (Docs. 42 and 47), as well as a number of other motions
and requests (see Docs. 44, 45, 46, 48, and 49). The Court will consider Plaintiff’s objections to
the two Reports and Recommendations de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3).
In the first Order and Report and Recommendation (Doc. 36), the Magistrate Judge
recommended that Plaintiff’s claims against all Defendants, except Defendants Hitchens and
Frederick be dismissed without prejudice. Additionally, Plaintiff was given until October 24,
2016 to file an amended complaint or face dismissal of this action.
In response, Plaintiff filed several new motions as well as his objections restating much
of the same arguments. Plaintiff against asks for an extension to file the amended complaint,
arguing that he was placed in segregation and did not have access to the law library.

In the second Order and Report and Recommendation (Doc. 43), the Magistrate Judge
acknowledged the additional documents filed by Plaintiff, denied his motion finalizing all 7
defendants, and ultimately recommended that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and
comply with the Court’s Orders.
In response to the final Order and Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff requests that the
Court not dismiss his case and again argues that he has identified the proper defendants. He
argues that he filed a motion for extension but was denied. Plaintiff asserts that he wishes to
prosecute his claims on the merits, but he still does not have access to the law library. Plaintiff
ultimately filed an Amended Complaint, see Doc. 46, however, the deadline for filing had
passed.
The Court has carefully considered all of Plaintiff’s arguments, however, the objections
present the same issues presented to and considered by the Magistrate Judge in the two
aforementioned Orders and Reports and Recommendations. Plaintiff continues to object and
argue that he has been refused access to the law library and that he wishes to obtain counsel.
Regardless of his reasoning, Plaintiff failed to timely respond to Court Orders. Therefore, for the
reasons stated in detail in the Orders and Reports and Recommendations, Plaintiff’s objections to
the Reports and Recommendations are without merit and are hereby OVERRULED.
The October 12, 2016 and November 1, 2016 Reports and Recommendations (Docs. 36
and 43) are hereby ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. Plaintiff missed three court-ordered deadlines
to file his amended complaint. Therefore, this action is hereby dismissed for failure to prosecute
and comply with the Court’s Orders. Further, document 49 is denied as moot.

2

The Clerk shall remove Documents 36, 43, and 49 from the Court’s pending motions list
and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ George C. Smith__________________
GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3