From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Easterling v. Ohio

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Sep 4, 2013
Case No. 3:13-cv-24 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 4, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. 3:13-cv-24

09-04-2013

WARREN EASTERLING, Petitioner, v. STATE OF OHIO, Respondent.


Judge Timothy S. Black

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz


DECISION AND ENTRY: (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 36);

(2); GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED

COMPLAINT (Doc. 32); (3) DENYING PETITIONER'S AMENDED MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Doc. 27); AND (4) TERMINATING THIS

CASE ON THE COURT'S DOCKET

This case is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint filed by Respondent (Doc. 32) and Petitioner's Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 27). United States Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz issued a Report and Recommendations recommending that Respondent's Motion be granted, that Petitioner's Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction be denied and that this case be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 36). No party filed an objection to the Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and the time for doing so has expired. The Motions and the Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge are now ripe before the Court.

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), upon reviewing the Motions before the Court and the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge de novo, the Court: (1) ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 36) of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety; (2) GRANTS Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Doc. 32); (3) DENIES Petitioner's Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 27); (4) DISMISSES Petitioner's Complaint with prejudice; and (5) TERMINATES this case on the Court's docket.

The Clerk shall also TERMINATE Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the original complaint (Doc. 12) and the Reports and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge concerning that Motion (Docs. 15, 19) as moot. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the original complaint and the Reports and Recommendations concerning that Motion became moot upon the filing of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. See Perkins v. Sun Chemical Corp., No. 1:10cv810, 2011 WL 1403069, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 12, 2011).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

___________________

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Easterling v. Ohio

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Sep 4, 2013
Case No. 3:13-cv-24 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 4, 2013)
Case details for

Easterling v. Ohio

Case Details

Full title:WARREN EASTERLING, Petitioner, v. STATE OF OHIO, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Date published: Sep 4, 2013

Citations

Case No. 3:13-cv-24 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 4, 2013)