Summary
dismissing as duplicative Plaintiff's subsequent complaints stemming from the alleged incidents in Case No. 1:20-cv-637.
Summary of this case from Hoffmeyer v. PerryOpinion
Case No. 1:21cv109
04-05-2021
SAMUEL HOFFMEYER, Plaintiff, v. ANNETTE CHAMBERS SMITH, Director, ODRC, et al., Defendants.
Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 4), OVERULING OBJECTION, AND TERMINATING CASE
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz (Doc. 4), to whom this case is referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). In the Report, Magistrate Judge Litkovitz explains that Plaintiff's action raises claims that are related to an earlier action filed in this Court on August 18, 2020 (1:20cv637). "To the extent that plaintiff seeks to add additional defendants or claims relating to the initial lawsuit, the proper procedure is to file a motion to amend in that action." (Doc. 4 at 2.) That action remains pending.
Plaintiff filed a request to extend the time to file objections to the Report. (Doc. 6.) He also filed a request to re-open the complaint. (Doc. 7.) Both filings were timely. The latter filing essentially states his objection to the Report. So the Court will construe his request to re-open the complaint as a timely-filed objection. That makes his extension request moot.
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 review, the Court finds that Plaintiff's objections are not well-taken and are accordingly OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4) in its entirety. Accordingly, the Court orders as follows:
1. Plaintiff's complaint is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
2. Plaintiff's request for extension (Doc. 6) is DENIED AS MOOT.
3. Plaintiff's request to re-open complaint (Doc. 7) is OVERRULED and DENIED.
4. This action is hereby TERMINATED on the Court's docket.
5. The Court CERTIFIES pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that, for the reasons expressed in the Report, an appeal of this Order adopting the Report would not be taken in good faith, and therefore DENIES plaintiffs leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 203 (2007). Plaintiffs remain free to apply to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803 (6th Cir. 1999).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
By: /s/_________
JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND