Moon v. Jones, Sheriff et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT: (1) PRO SE PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL (DOC. 31 ) BE GRANTED; (2) THIS CASE BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (3) DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 24 ) BE DENIED AS MOOT; AND (4) THIS CASE BE TERMINATED ON THE COURTS DOCKET. Objections to R&R due by 12/13/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 11/28/17. (kma)(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
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
DARNELL WESLY MOON,
Case No. 3:15-cv-424
SHERIFF RICHARD K. JONES, et al.,
District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 THAT: (1) PRO SE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL (DOC. 31) BE GRANTED; (2) THIS CASE BE
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (3) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 24)
BE DENIED AS MOOT; AND (4) THIS CASE BE TERMINATED ON THE COURT’S
This civil case is before the Court on the notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice
filed by pro se Plaintiff. Doc. 31. At this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff’s complaint can be
dismissed only by order of the Court, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, and therefore, the Court liberally
construes Plaintiff’s notice as a motion for voluntary dismissal with prejudice. For good cause
shown, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that: (1) Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal
(doc. 31) be GRANTED; (2) Plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (3)
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (doc. 24) be DENIED AS MOOT and (4) this case be
TERMINATED on the Court’s docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 28, 2017
s/ Michael J. Newman
Michael J. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge
Attached hereto is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and
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 Recommendation. This period is not extended by virtue of Fed. R.
Civ. P. 6(d) if served on you by electronic means, such as via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system.
If, however, this Report and Recommendation was served upon you by mail, this deadline is
extended to SEVENTEEN DAYS by application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). Parties may seek an
extension of the deadline to file objections by filing a motion for extension, which the Court may
grant upon a showing of good cause.
Any objections filed shall specify the portions of the Report and Recommendation
objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If
the Report and Recommendation is 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. As noted above, this period is not extended by virtue of Fed. R. Civ.
P. 6(d) if served on you by electronic means, such as via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system. If,
however, this Report and Recommendation was served upon you by mail, this deadline is
extended to SEVENTEEN DAYS by application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).
Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal.
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50
(6th Cir. 1981).
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?