Smith v. Montgomery County Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 168

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING SMITHS OBJECTIONS (Doc. 158 ) TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGES REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SMITHS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO APPEAL; OVERRULING SMITHS OBJECTIONS (Doc. 164 ) TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGES SUPPLEMENTAL REP ORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SMITHS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO APPEAL; OVERRULING SMITHS OBJECTIONS (Doc. 165 ) TO THEMAGISTRATE JUDGES REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SMITHS MOTION TO STRIKE; DENYING SMITHS MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO APPEAL (Doc. 147 ) AND DENYING SMITHS MOTION TO STRIKE (Doc. 162 ). Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 8/1/2013. (kf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
BILLY M. SMITH,
Case No. C-3:10-cv-448
Plaintiff,
Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

-vMONTGOMERY COUNTY
SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al.,

Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING SMITH’S OBJECTIONS (Doc.
#158) TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SMITH’S MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO APPEAL; OVERRULING SMITH’S
OBJECTIONS (Doc. #164) TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
SMITH’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO APPEAL;
OVERRULING SMITH’S OBJECTIONS (Doc. #165) TO THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING SMITH’S MOTION TO STRIKE; DENYING SMITH’S
MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO APPEAL (Doc. #147) AND
DENYING SMITH’S MOTION TO STRIKE (Doc. #162)
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Billy M. Smith’s (“Smith’s”)
Objections (doc. #158) to the Report and Recommendations filed by Magistrate Judge Michael
R. Merz (“Magistrate Merz”) regarding Smith’s Motion for Extension of Time To Appeal (doc.
#157), Smith’s Objections (doc. #164) to Magistrate Merz’s Supplemental Report and
Recommendations regarding Smith’s Motion for Extension of Time To Appeal (doc. #161) and
Smith’s Objections (doc. #165) to the Magistrate Judge Merz’s Report and Recommendations
regarding Smith’s Motion To Strike (doc. #163). Magistrate Merz recommends that Smith’s
Motion for Extension of Time To Appeal and his Motion To Strike both be denied.

The Defendants have filed a Response to Smith’s Objections to the Supplemental Report
and Recommendations and a Response to Smith’s Objections to Magistrate Merz’s Report and
Recommendations regarding Smith’s Motion To Strike. Smith’s Objections are, therefore, ripe
for review.
As required by 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 72(b), the
District Judge has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon said review, the Court
finds that Smith’s Objections to Magistrate Merz’s Report and Recommendations regarding
Smith’s Motion for Extension of Time To Appeal are not well-taken and are hereby
OVERRULED. Also, Smith’s Objections to Magistrate Merz’s Supplemental Report and
Recommendations regarding Smith’s Motion for Extension of Time To Appeal are not welltaken and are hereby OVERRULED. Finally, Smith’s Objections to Magistrate Merz’s Report
and Recommendations regarding Smith’s Motion To Strike are not well-taken and are hereby
OVERRULED.
Magistrate Merz’s Report and Recommendations and Supplemental Report and
Recommendations regarding Smith’s Motion for Extension of Time To Appeal are adopted in
their entirety. Smith’s Motion for Extension of Time To Appeal is DENIED.
Magistrate Merz’s Report and Recommendations regarding Smith’s Motion To Strike is
adopted in its entirety. Smith’s Motion To Strike is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this First Day of August, 2013.
s/Thomas M. Rose
_______________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATED DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
-2-

Counsel of Record
Billy M. Smith at his last address of record

-3-