Alahverdian v. Grebinski et al

Filing 40

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING ALAHVERDIAN'S OBJECTIONS (Doc. #32 ) TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE MERZ'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TODISMISS (Doc. #30 ); OVERRULING ALAHVERDIAN'S OBJECTIONS (Doc. #36 ) TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE MERZ'S SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. #34 ); ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGEMERZ'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND DISMISSINGALAHVERDIAN'S AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 9/8/14. (ep)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
NICHOLAS ALAHVERDIAN,
Case No. 3:13-cv-132
Plaintiff,
Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

-vMARY J. GREBINSKI, et al.,

Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING ALAHVERDIAN’S OBJECTIONS
(Doc. #32) TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE MERZ’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS (Doc. #30); OVERRULING ALAHVERDIAN’S OBJECTIONS
(Doc. #36) TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE MERZ’S SUPPLEMENTAL
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. #34); ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MERZ’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND DISMISSING
ALAHVERDIAN’S AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff Nicholas Alahverdian (“Alahverdian”) brought this action against Defendants
Mary J. Grebinski and Nathan M. Lanning (collectively referred to hereinafter as “Defendants”)
alleging defamation per se, false light invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional
distress. (Doc. #21.) The Defendants filed a Motion To Dismiss Alahverdian’s Amended
Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Doc. #23.) This Motion was fully briefed.
(Docs. #27 and #28.)
On May 19, 2014, Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz issued a Report and
Recommendations recommending that the Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss be granted with
prejudice. (Doc. #30.) Alahverdian subsequently objected to this Report and Recommendations

(doc. #32) and the matter was recommitted to Magistrate Judge Merz for further analysis (doc.
#33). On August 5, 2014, Magistrate Judge Merz issued a Supplemental Report and
Recommendations (doc. #34) again recommending that Alahverdian’s Amended Complaint be
dismissed with prejudice. Alahverdian again objected. (Doc. #36.) The Defendants have
responded to Alahverdian’s objections. (Doc. #38.) Alahverdian’s Objections are, therefore, 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 Alahverdian’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations and
Alahverdian’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Supplemental Report and Recommendations
are not well-taken, and they are hereby OVERRULED. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendations and Supplemental Report and Recommendations are adopted in their entirety.
The Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss is granted. Alahverdian’s Amended Complaint is
dismissed with prejudice.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Eighth Day of September, 2014.
s/Thomas M. Rose
_______________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATED DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

-2-