Costlow v. ODRC (Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections) et al

Filing 23

DECISION AND ENTRY - Court hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendations. It therefore is ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendations filed on December 1, 2021 (Doc. No. 22 ) is ADOPTED in full; 2. Defendants Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections and the State of Ohios Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11 ) is GRANTED; 3. Defendants Dayton Correctional Institution, Beverly Clayton and Dr. Rosalind Moores Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 15 ) is GRANTED; 4. Plaintiffs Motion to Remove and Replace (Doc. No. 20 ) isGRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; and 5. This case is terminated on the docket of this Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 12/21/21. (pb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Case: 3:21-cv-00043-TMR-SLO Doc #: 23 Filed: 12/21/21 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 181

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
KAREN COSTLOW,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
vs.
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
REHABILITATION AND
CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Case No. 3:21-cv-00043
District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington

Defendants.

DECISION AND ENTRY
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report and Recommendations of
United States Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington (Doc. No. 22), to whom this case
originally was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Noting that no objections have
been filed and that the time for filing such objections, if any, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)
has expired, this Court hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendations.
It therefore is ORDERED that:
1.

The Report and Recommendations filed on December 1, 2021
(Doc. No. 22) is ADOPTED in full;

2.

Defendants’ Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Corrections and the State of Ohio’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
No. 11) is GRANTED;

3.

Defendants’ Dayton Correctional Institution, Beverly Clayton
and Dr. Rosalind Moore’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 15) is
GRANTED;

Case: 3:21-cv-00043-TMR-SLO Doc #: 23 Filed: 12/21/21 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 182

4.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Remove and Replace (Doc. No. 20) is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; and

5.

This case is terminated on the docket of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

December 21, 2021

s/Thomas M. Rose
Thomas M. Rose
United States District Judge

2