Day v. DeLong et al

Filing 50

DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE OVINGTON 47 , OVERRULING DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 48 , AND DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 30 . Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 1-10-2018. (de)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON Jeffery Day, Plaintiff, Case No. 3:16-cv-437 Judge Thomas M. Rose v. Kim DeLong, et al., Defendants. DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE OVINGTON (DOC. 47), OVERRULING DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE=S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, (DOC. 48), AND DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS. (DOC. 30). The instant action brings claims of constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various state law claims. (Doc. 1). Pending before the Court are Defendants’ Objections to Magistrate Judge Sharon Ovington’s Report and Recommendations. (Doc. 48). The Report and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington, (Doc. 47), recommends that the Court deny Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Doc. 30). 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. Upon said review, the Court finds that Defendants’ objections, (Doc. 48), to the Magistrate Judge=s Report and Recommendations, (Doc. 47), are not well taken and they are hereby OVERRULED. Wherefore, the Court ADOPTS IN FULL the Magistrate Judge=s Report and Recommendations. (Doc. 47). Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 30) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this Wednesday, January 10, 2018. s/Thomas M. Rose ________________________________ THOMAS M. ROSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?