Simon v. Miami County Incarceration Facility, et al

Filing 50

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. #38) to theReport and Recommendations (Doc. #32) issued by Chief MagistrateMerz on November 28, 2005, Adopting said Report and Recommendations Doc. #32) and Magistrate Judge's Supplemental Report and Recommendations (Doc. #40) in their entirety, dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint as to Defendant's Compass Group USA, Inc. and Supervisor Mike without Prejudice. Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 2/8/06. (bev1, )

Simon v. Miami County Incarceration Facility, et al

Doc. 50

Case 3:05-cv-00191-TMR-MRM

Document 50

Filed 02/08/2006

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
ALARIC F. SIMON, Plaintiff, -vsDistrict Judge Thomas M. Rose MIAMI COUNTY INCARCERATION FACILITY, et al., Defendants ______________________________________________________________________________ ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS (DOC. #38) TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. #32) ISSUED BY CHIEF MAGISTRATE MERZ ON NOVEMBER 28, 2005, ADOPTING SAID REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. #32) AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. #40) IN THEIR ENTIRETY, DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AS TO DEFENDANT'S COMPASS GROUP USA, INC. AND SUPERVISOR MIKE WITHOUT PREJUDICE _______________________________________________________________________________ This case is before the Court on Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. #38) to the Report and Recommendations (Doc. #32) of the United States Chief Magistrate Judge that the case against Defendants Compass Group U.S.A. Inc. (incorrectly identified in the Complaint as Canteen Correctional Food Services) and an employee referred to as Supervisor Mike. Subsequent to the Objections (Doc. #38), the Chief Magistrate Judge, pursuant to the General Order of Reference for the Dayton location of Court reconsidered his previous Report and Recommendations (Doc. #38) and issued a Supplemental Report and Recommendations; Order Striking Portions of Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition (Doc. #40) again recommending that the claims against the named Defendants be dismissed without prejudice for lack of service of process. Case No. C-3-05-191

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:05-cv-00191-TMR-MRM

Document 50

Filed 02/08/2006

Page 2 of 2

As required by 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. 72(b), this District Judge has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon said review, the Court finds the Objections (Doc. #38) to the original Report and Recommendations (Doc. #32) are not well-founded and are hereby OVERRULED. Accordingly, the Chief Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations (Doc. #32) and Supplemental Report and Recommendations (Doc. #40) are ADOPTED. The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants is GRANTED. Said Complaint as to these moving Defendants is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. February 8, 2006 s/Thomas M. Rose ___________________________________ THOMAS M. ROSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-