Moore v. Central Ohio Drug Enforcement Task Force (Code TF) et al

Filing 27

ORDER ADOPTING and AFFIRMING the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 22 in that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Signed by Judge George C. Smith on 4/26/18. (sem)(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
CHAD A. MOORE,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No.: 2:16-cv-987
JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH
Magistrate Judge Deavers

CENTRAL OHIO DRUG
ENFORCEMENT TASK FORCE
(CODE TF), et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
On March 6, 2018, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be granted. (See Report
and Recommendation, Doc. 22). The parties were advised of their right to object to the Report
and Recommendation. This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objections to the
Report and Recommendation. (See Doc. 23). Defendants have also filed a reply. (Doc. 26).
The Court will consider the matter de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
Plaintiff concedes that the Magistrate Judge’s findings that Plaintiff has failed to state a
claim for which relief may be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure were correct with respect to Defendants Licking County Sheriff’s Department and the
Central Ohio Drug Enforcement Task Force. (Doc. 23 at 5). Plaintiff does object to the finding,
or lack thereof, with respect to Defendants Kyle Boesrstler and Greg Collins. Plaintiff asserts
that although the Report and Recommendation recommends that his Complaint be dismissed for

failure to state a claim, the Report and Recommendation fails to specifically state whether the
claims against Boerstler and Collins were dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.
Plaintiff brings the claims against the individual Defendants Boerstler and Collins
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although the Court agrees that the Report and Recommendation
could have more clearly stated that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Boerstler and Collins
were dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, it did state that
Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against Defendants in their official capacities are not permitted (Doc.
22 at 6) and that all of Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims are barred by Heck. (Doc. 22 at 8). Therefore,
for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, this Court finds that Plaintiff’s
objections are without merit and are hereby OVERRULED.
The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 22, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted.
The Clerk shall remove Documents 15 and 22 from the Court’s pending motions list.
The Clerk shall terminate this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ George C. Smith__________________
GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2