Leffel v. Village of Casstown

Filing 20

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (DOC. 15 ), ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 14 ), AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (DOC. 11 ) ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety and, accordingly, GRANTS the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Plaintiff's claim for damages (in claim five) that arises from claim two, but DENIES the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to claims one, three, four, andPlaintiff's remaining claim for damages in claim five. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 1/5/18. (ep)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
THOMAS E. LEFFEL,

:
Case No. 3:17-cv-79
:
Plaintiff,
:
Judge Thomas M. Rose
:
v.
:
:
VILLAGE OF CASSTOWN,
:
:
Defendant.
:
______________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (DOC. 15), ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 14), AND GRANTING IN
PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
ON THE PLEADINGS (DOC. 11)
______________________________________________________________________________
This case is before the Court on the Objections (Doc. 15) filed by Defendant
Village of Casstown (“the Village”) to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendations (“Report”) (Doc. 14). In the Report, Magistrate Judge Sharon L.
Ovington recommended that the Court grant the Village’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings (Doc. 11) as to Plaintiff’s claim for damages (in claim five) that arises from
claim two, but deny the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to claims one, three,
four, and Plaintiff’s remaining claim for damages in claim five. The Village filed
Objections (Doc. 15) to the Report, in response to which Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc.
18). The Village then filed a Reply (Doc. 19) to Plaintiff’s Response, although Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) does not authorize the filing of a reply memorandum.
Nonetheless, the Court included the Village’s Reply in its consideration of the Report.

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 the Village’s Objections (Docs. 15) to the Report (Doc. 14) are not well-taken
and they are hereby OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 14) in its
entirety and, accordingly, GRANTS the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc.
11) as to Plaintiff’s claim for damages (in claim five) that arises from claim two, but
DENIES the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to claims one, three, four, and
Plaintiff’s remaining claim for damages in claim five.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Friday, January 5, 2018.
s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2