From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cooksey v. McElroy

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
Sep 24, 2008
Case No. 1:07cv581 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 24, 2008)

Summary

finding that it is appropriate to impose sanctions against a pro se plaintiff for his violation of Rule 11

Summary of this case from McKenna v. Nestle Purina Petcare Co.

Opinion

Case No. 1:07cv581.

September 24, 2008


ORDER


This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation filed by the Magistrate Judge on September 5, 2008 (Doc. 59).

Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the Report and Recommendation in a timely manner. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). No objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation have been filed.

Having reviewed this matter de novo pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to be correct.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED;

1. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (Docs. 35, 37, and 43) are GRANTED;

2. Defendants' motion to Strike (Doc. 40) is GRANTED;

3. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Doc. 22, 23, 27, 28, and 41) are GRANTED;

4. Defendant Pleasant Township Trustees' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 45) is GRANTED;

5. Plaintiff's claims set forth in section XI is DISMISSED;

6. Plaintiff's Motions for Default Judgment (Doc. 48) is DENIED;

7. Plaintiff's Motions for Immediate Statutory Injunction and for Hearing (Docs. 30, 31, 32, and 47) are DENIED; and

8. Defendants' Motions for Sanctions under Rule 11 (Docs. 34 and 46) are GRANTED.

Defendants Scott T. Gusweiller, Pleasant Township Trustees, Brown County Sherrif, Office of Brown County Prosecutor, John Does, County of Brown, Brown County Commissioners, Alan Corbin, Thomas Zachman, State of Ohio, Ohio Department of Health, and the Justice Department are TERMINATED from this matter; remaining defendants are Bobby McElroy and Ricky McElroy.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Exhibit


Summaries of

Cooksey v. McElroy

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
Sep 24, 2008
Case No. 1:07cv581 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 24, 2008)

finding that it is appropriate to impose sanctions against a pro se plaintiff for his violation of Rule 11

Summary of this case from McKenna v. Nestle Purina Petcare Co.
Case details for

Cooksey v. McElroy

Case Details

Full title:Othel L. Cooksey Jr., Plaintiff, v. Bobby McElroy, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

Date published: Sep 24, 2008

Citations

Case No. 1:07cv581 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 24, 2008)

Citing Cases

WILLIAMS v. AMERICAN WATER/BOTTOMS

izen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another."); Chapa v.…

McKenna v. Nestle Purina Petcare Co.

Pro se filings do not serve as an "impenetrable shield, for one acting pro se has no license to harass…