Wright v. MacConnell

Filing 72

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS 69 TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 68 , ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 68 , AND DENYING MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT 63 . Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 5-18-2017. (de)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON DWAINE WRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. RION MACCONNELL, Defendant, : : : : : : : : : : Case No. 3:15-cv-211 Judge Thomas M. Rose   ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS (DOC. 69) TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 68), ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 68), AND DENYING MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT (DOC. 63) This case is before the Court on Defendant Rion MacConnell’s Objections (Doc. 69) to the Report and Recommendations (“Report”) (Doc. 68) of Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Merz recommends that the Court deny Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment (Doc. 63) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Defendant filed Objections (Doc. 69) to the Report. The time for Plaintiff Dwaine Wright to respond to the Objections has not yet expired, but the Court finds that no such response is required. 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. Based on said review, the Court finds that the Objections (Doc. 69) are not well-taken and are hereby OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report (Doc. 68) in its entirety and DENIES the Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment (Doc. 63). DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Thursday, May 18, 2017. s/Thomas M. Rose ________________________________ THOMAS M. ROSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?