Dispasquale v. Hawkins et al

Filing 68

DECISION AND ORDER denying 59 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 2-2-2018. (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 DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION (ECF 59).

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF 59)
requesting review of this Court's Order (ECF 54) filed September 27, 2017, which adopted the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF 42) granting Defendant Herres’s Motion
for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF 18), Defendant Proctor’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings (ECF 25) and Hawkins’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF 22) as it relates to
a claim of civil conspiracy, but denying Hawkins’s Motion as it relates to Plaintiff’s claim of
malicious prosecution.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration asks the Court to revisit its analysis of Plaintiff’s
action against the respondents. That is to say, Plaintiff opposed Defendants’ motions before the
Magistrate Judge, objected to the Report and Recommendation, and now seeks reconsideration of
the adoption order.

After a review of the record, this Court finds that its prior decision was and is correct as a
matter of law. Consequently, this Court must deny petitioner's motion. IT IS THEREFORE
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration be DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED this Friday, February 2, 2018.

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