Williams v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitations and Corrections et al
ENTRY AND ORDER VACATING ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 67 ) FOR RECONSIDERATION IN LIGHT OF PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS (DOC. 66 ) : The Court hereby VACATES its Order adopting the Report and Recommendations and willreconsider the Report and Recommendations in light of Plaintiffs Objections. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 7/7/17. (ep)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
MELODY L. WILLIAMS,
OHIO DEPT. OF REHABILITATION
AND CORRECTION, et al.,
Case No: 3:15-cv-388
Judge Thomas M. Rose
ENTRY AND ORDER VACATING ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 67) FOR RECONSIDERATION IN LIGHT
OF PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (DOC. 66)
This matter is before the Court on the Objections (Doc. 70) filed by Plaintiff
Melody L. Williams (“Plaintiff”) to the Court’s Order (Doc. 67) adopting the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendations (Doc. 64) on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preventative
Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 57). Plaintiff is an incarcerated pro
se litigant. Under the “prison mailbox rule,” she timely submitted Objections (Doc. 66)
to the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 64) to the Ohio Reformatory for Women on
June 16, 2017. Brand v. Motley, 526 F.3d 921, 925 (6th Cir. 2008). When the Court entered
its Order adopting the Report and Recommendations, however, it was not aware that
Plaintiff’s Objections had been timely submitted. As a result, the Court did not consider
Plaintiff’s Objections and incorrectly represented in its Order adopting the Report and
Recommendations that no objections had been filed. For that reason, Plaintiff has filed
well-founded Objections (Doc. 70) to the Court’s Order.
To correct this error, which was inadvertent, the Court hereby VACATES its
Order (Doc. 67) adopting the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 64) and will
reconsider the Report and Recommendations in light of Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. 66).
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Friday, July 7, 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?