McCoy v. Carlson et al
Filing
87
ORDER AND ENTRY GRANTING PLAINTIFF GARY MCCOYS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. 74 ) *** REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 THAT DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOCS. 61 , 65 , 67 ) BE DENIED AS MOOT Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 4/30/2019. (srb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
GARY L. MCCOY,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 3:17-cv-432
vs.
DR. RODNEY L. CARLSON, et al.,
District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER AND ENTRY GRANTING PLAINTIFF GARY MCCOY’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. 74)
***
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 THAT DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS
THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOCS. 61, 65, 67) BE DENIED AS MOOT
______________________________________________________________________________
This civil case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint. Doc. 74. Defendants did not file a memorandum in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion
for leave, and the time for doing so has expired. Accordingly, for good cause shown and absent
opposition -- and noting that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), “[t]he [C]ourt should freely give
leave when justice so requires” -- Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint
(doc. 74) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to separately file the third amended complaint
within 7 days from the entry of this Order.
Also before the Court are three motions to dismiss filed by Defendants. Docs. 61, 65, 67.
Because Defendants’ motions to dismiss are directed to Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, the
undersigned RECOMMENDS that they be DENIED AS MOOT AND WITHOUT
1
Attached hereto is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and
Recommendation.
PREJUDICE TO REFILE. See Laning v. Doyle, No. 3:14–cv–24, 2014 WL 2805240, at *1–2
(S.D. Ohio June 20, 2014).
Date:
April 30, 2019
s/ Michael J. Newman
Michael J. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge
2
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).
3
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?