Harris v. Clark County Sheriff et al

Filing 11

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING HARRIS'S OBJECTIONS (Doc. # 9 ) TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. # 6 ) IN ITS ENTIRETY; DISMISSING HARRIS'S COMPLAINT; DENYING HARRIS'S MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL, DENYING HARRIS LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND TERMINATING THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 8/16/11. (bac1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
RONALD E. HARRIS, II,
Case No. C-3:11-cv-155
Plaintiff,
Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington

-vSHERIFF GENE KELLY, et al.,

Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING HARRIS’S OBJECTIONS (Doc. #9)
TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS; ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. #6) IN ITS ENTIRETY;
DISMISSING HARRIS’S COMPLAINT; DENYING HARRIS’S MOTION
TO APPOINT COUNSEL, DENYING HARRIS LEAVE TO APPEAL IN
FORMA PAUPERIS AND TERMINATING THIS CASE
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to pro se Plaintiff Ronald E. Harris, II’s
(“Harris’s”) Objections (doc. #9) to Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington’s Report and
Recommendations (doc. #6) regarding Harris’s Complaint. Harris’s Complaint has not been
served. Thus, his Objections are ripe for decision.
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 Harris’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations are not
well-taken, and they are hereby OVERRULED. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendations is adopted in its entirety.
Upon sua sponte review before serving, Harris’s Complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Harris’s Complaint is construed as being brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1983 and is, thus, barred by the statute of limitations. Further, Harris’s Complaint and the
attached documents, when construed heavily in his favor, fails to state a plausible, nonspeculative claim upon which relief could be granted.
Harris’s Complaint is, therefore, dismissed. Further, his Motion To Appoint Counsel is
denied as moot. Also, leave for Harris to appeal this decision in forma pauperis is denied.
Finally, this case is hereby ordered terminated on the docket records of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Western Division at Dayton.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Sixteenth Day of August, 2011.
s/Thomas M. Rose
_______________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATED DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Ronald E. Harris, II at his last address of record

-2-