Winkle v. Loranger et al

Filing 43

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING WINKLE'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE MERZ'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SANCTIONS (Doc. 42 ); ADOPTING MAGISTRATE MERZ'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SANCTIONS (Doc. 41 ) IN PART; ASSESSING A MONETARY PENALTY AGAINST WINKLE IN THE AMOUNT OF $500; BARRING WINKLE FROM FILING ANY NEW CASES IN THIS COURT IN FORMA PAUPERIS UNTIL HE COMPLIES WITH THIS ORDER AND DENYING WINKLE'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY (Doc. 32 ) - Winkle is hereby asse ssed a monetary penalty of $500. Further, until Winkle complies with this sanctions Order, he is barred from filing new cases in this Court in forma pauperis. As for Winkles Motion To Disqualify (Doc. 32 ), the Magistrate Judge recommends ordering Winkle to withdraw said Motion. However, the Court finds said motion to be without merit and, therefore, denies same. Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 7/7/14. (ep)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
MARK R. WINKLE,
Case No. 3:14-cv-020
Plaintiff,
Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

-vCAROL S. LORANGER, et al.,

Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING WINKLE’S OBJECTIONS TO
MAGISTRATE MERZ’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING SANCTIONS (Doc. #42); ADOPTING MAGISTRATE
MERZ’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
SANCTIONS (Doc. #41) IN PART; ASSESSING A MONETARY PENALTY
AGAINST WINKLE IN THE AMOUNT OF $500; BARRING WINKLE
FROM FILING ANY NEW CASES IN THIS COURT IN FORMA
PAUPERIS UNTIL HE COMPLIES WITH THIS ORDER AND DENYING
WINKLE’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY (Doc. #32)
______________________________________________________________________________
Pro se Plaintiff Mark R. Winkle (“Winkle”) brought an action in this Court which has
subsequently been dismissed. (Doc. # 41.) As part of this action, Winkle moved to disqualify
Magistrate Judge Merz. (Doc. #32.) Magistrate Judge Merz then ordered Winkle to show cause
as to why Winkle should not be sanctioned for making certain allegations, and to produce
evidentiary support for these allegations. (Doc. #33.) Winkle responded that the allegations were
merely allegations and attempted to reverse the burden of proof by asserting that Magistrate
Judge Merz provide proof that the allegations are not true.
Magistrate Judge Merz then issued a Report and Recommendations recommending that
Winkle be sanctioned. (Doc. #41.) On July 1, 2014, Winkle responded to this Report and

Recommendations by essentially repeating the allegations1 and by attempting to reverse the
burden of proof by asserting that Magistrate Judge Merz provide proof that the allegations are
not true. (Doc. # 42.)
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 Winkle’s Objections to Magistrate Judge Merz’s Report and Recommendations
regarding sanctions are not well-taken, and they are hereby OVERRULED. Magistrate Judge
Merz’s Report and Recommendations regarding sanctions is adopted in part.
Winkle is hereby assessed a monetary penalty of $500. Further, until Winkle complies
with this sanctions Order, he is barred from filing new cases in this Court in forma pauperis.
As for Winkle’s Motion To Disqualify (Doc. #32), the Magistrate Judge recommends
ordering Winkle to withdraw said Motion. However, the Court finds said motion to be without
merit and, therefore, denies same.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Seventh Day of July, 2014.
s/Thomas M. Rose
_______________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATED DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Mark R. Winkle at his last address of record

1

Winkle’s allegations are hearsay and, therefore, not evidence.
-2-