Dispasquale v. Hawkins et al

Filing 54

DECISION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 42 , OVERRULING DEFENDANT JAMES HAWKINS'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE'S REPORT ANDRECOMMENDATIONS 46 , OVERRULING PLAINTIFF CHARLES DIPASQUALE'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE'S REPO RT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 47 , GRANTING DEFENDANT HERRESS PARTIAL MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 18 ; GRANTING DEFENDANT PROCTER'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 25 , TERMINATING HIM AS A PARTY TO THIS CASE; AND GRANTING IN PART AND D ENYING IN PART DEFENDANT HAWKINSS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 22 . HAWKINSS MOTION IS GRANTED WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF CIVIL CONSPIRACY, BUT DENIED WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 9-27-2017. (de)

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

Charles Dipasquale,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 3:16-cv-219
Judge Thomas M. Rose
Mag. Judge Michael J. Newman

v.

Detective James Hawkins, et al,
Defendants.

DECISION
AND
ORDER
ADOPTING
REPORT
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, (ECF 42), OVERRULING DEFENDANT JAMES
HAWKINS=S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE=S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, (ECF 46), OVERRULING PLAINTIFF
CHARLES DIPASQUALE=S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE=S REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATIONS, (ECF 47), GRANTING DEFENDANT
HERRES’S PARTIAL MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
(ECF 18); GRANTING DEFENDANT PROCTER’S MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (ECF 25), TERMINATING HIM AS A
PARTY TO THIS CASE; AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART DEFENDANT HAWKINS’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS. (ECF 22). HAWKINS’S MOTION IS GRANTED WITH
REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF CIVIL CONSPIRACY, BUT DENIED
WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.

This case is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman’s Report and
Recommendations, (ECF 42), Defendant James Hawkins=s Objections to the Report and
Recommendations, (ECF 46), Plaintiff Charles Dipasquale=s Objections to the Report and
Recommendations, (ECF 47), Defendant Mark Herres’s Partial Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings, (ECF 18), Defendant Brad Procter’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (ECF 25),
and Defendant James Hawkins’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (ECF 22). Plaintiff’s

complaint describes a failed criminal prosecution stemming from a failed business relationship
that involved, inter alia, a 1968 Ford Torino, and asserts claims under § 1983 for malicious
prosecution in violation of the Fourth Amendment and a civil conspiracy between the Defendants.
Id. at PageID 10. Dipasquale also seeks a finding against Herres under Ohio Rev. Code § 4505.02
that the certificate of title issued for the Torino was improperly issued. Id. at PageID 10.
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, taking into consideration all objections. Upon
said review, the Court finds that the objections, (ECF 46, 47), to Report and Recommendations,
(ECF. 42), are not well taken and they are hereby OVERRULED. Wherefore, the Court
ADOPTS IN FULL the Magistrate Judge=s Report and Recommendations. (ECF 42.) Defendant
Herres’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF 18) is GRANTED. Defendant
Proctor’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF 25) is GRANTED. Hawkins’s Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF 22) is GRANTED as it relates to the claim of civil conspiracy
and DENIED as it relates to the claim of malicious prosecution.
DONE and ORDERED this Wednesday, September 27, 2017.

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