Williams v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitations and Corrections et al

Filing 24

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS It is accordingly respectfully recommended that Defendants' First Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted (ECF No. 20) be denied as moot. Objections to R&R due by 5/20/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 5/3/2016. (kpf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
MELODY L. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,

-

vs

:

Case No. 3:15-cv-388

District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

-

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION
AND CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

:

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This case is before the Court on Defendants’ First Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a
claim on which relief can be granted (ECF No. 20). Plaintiff, as a pro se litigant, was notified
that she was required to file a memorandum in opposition not later than May 2, 2016 (Order,
ECF No. 21). Rather than doing so, she has filed an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 23).
The filing of the Amended Complaint renders the Motion to Dismiss moot because it is
directed at the original Complaint which is no longer an operative pleading. Arguments made in
the Motion may or may not be relevant to the First Amended Complaint and Defendants are
authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to raise any such claims by filing a new

1

motion to dismiss directed to the Amended Complaint not later than May 16, 2016. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(a)(1)(3).
It is accordingly respectfully recommended that the First Motion to Dismiss be denied as
moot.

May 3, 2016.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with this Report
and Recommendations. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), this period is extended to seventeen
days because this Report is being served by one of the methods of service listed in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F). Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected
to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report
and Recommendations are based in whole or in part upon matters occurring of record at an oral
hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such
portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the
assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party=s objections
within fourteen days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in
accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See United States v. Walters, 638
F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985).

2