Parisi v. Mathias Heck, Jr. Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, individually an in his official capacity et al

Filing 73

DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE MERZ (DOC. 39 ), OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO THEMAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, (DOC. 42 ), GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR J UDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, (DOCS. 22 , 28 ), DENYING PLAINTIFF'S FIRST MOTION TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, (DOCS. 66 , 67 , 68 ), ANDTERMINATING CASE - Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations of United StatesMagistrate Judge Michael R. Merz, GRANTS Defendants' motions for judgment onthe pleadings, DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Third AmendedComplaint, and DISMISSES the Amended Complaint WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 1/8/16. (ep)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

Georgianna I. Parisi,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 3:14-cv-346
Judge Thomas M. Rose

v.

Mathias Heck, Jr., et al.,
Defendants.

DECISION
AND
ENTRY
ADOPTING
REPORT
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MERZ (DOC. 39), OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO THE
MAGISTRATE=S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, (DOC. 42),
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS, (DOCS. 22, 28), DENYING PLAINTIFF’S FIRST MOTION
TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, (DOCS. 66, 67, 68), AND
TERMINATING CASE.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Georgianna I. Parisi=s Objection to the Magistrate=s
Report and Recommendations. (Doc. 42). The Report and Recommendations of United States
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz, (Doc. 39), recommends that the Court grant Defendants’
motions for judgment on the pleadings, (docs. 22, 28) and dismiss the Amended Complaint (Doc.
3) with prejudice. Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s First Motion for Leave to File
Third Amended Complaint, filed as three docket entries to accommodate multiple attachments.
(Docs 66, 67, 68).
As required by 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has
made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon said review, the Court finds that Plaintiff=s

objections, (Docs. 42), to the Magistrate Judge=s Report and Recommendations, (Doc. 39), are not
well taken and they are hereby OVERRULED.
The Court notes that Plaintiff does not address the applicability of Younger abstention to
her case in her objection. The Court also notes that, while Plaintiff cites repeatedly to 5 U.S.C. §
522, apparently intending 5 U.S.C. § 552, Plaintiff ignores that no entity described in her amended
complaint meets the definition of “agency” stated in 5 U.S.C. § 551.
Finally, with regard to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint,
(Docs. 66, 67, 68), the Court notes that the Magistrate has previously denied a motion by Plaintiff
to amend the complaint, finding it untimely. (See doc. 58.) The Court also notes that Plaintiff’s
proposed Third Amended Complaint does not seek to address the infirmities identified in the
Report and Recommendation, but to include an additional similar instance of actions by
Defendants that Plaintiff perceives as actionable. For the reasons stated by the Magistrate in
Docket Entry 58, this motion will be denied.
Wherefore, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations of United States
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz, (Doc. 39), GRANTS Defendants’ motions for judgment on
the pleadings, (docs. 22, 28), DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Third Amended
Complaint, (Docs. 66, 67, 68), and DISMISSES the Amended Complaint (Doc. 3) WITH
PREJUDICE. The Clerk is ORDERED to terminate the instant case.
DONE and ORDERED this Friday, January 8, 2016.

s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2