Easterling v. Second District Court of Appeals, Greene County, No. 3:2013cv00106 - Document 16 (S.D. Ohio 2013)

Court Description: DECISION AND ENTRY: (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 10 ); (2) OVERRULING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO AMEND (Doc. 15 ); AND (3) DISMISSING THE AMENDED COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 7/25/2013. (mr1)

Download PDF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION WARREN EASTERLING, : : Petitioner, : : vs. : : SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS, : : Respondent. : Case No. 3:13-cv-106 Judge Timothy S. Black Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz DECISION AND ENTRY: (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 10); (2) OVERRULING PETITIONER S OBJECTIONS TO THE DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER S MOTION TO AMEND (Doc. 15); AND (3) DISMISSING THE AMENDED COMPLAINT This civil case is before the Court on the Report and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz. (Doc. 10). The Magistrate Judge recommends that Petitioner s Amended Complaint be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Id.) In response, Petitioner moved to amend his Amended Complaint and stated that he would file no objections beyond the amended pleadings. (Docs. 11, 12). The Magistrate Judge denied Petitioner s Motion to Amend as frivolous. (Doc. 14). Petitioner then filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge s denial of his Motion to Amend. (Doc. 15). The issues are now ripe for decision by the Court. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge in his Report and Recommendations de novo. With regard to Petitioner s Objections to the Magistrate Judge s denial of his Motion to Amend, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) provides that, following the issuance of an order by a Magistrate Judge on a nondispositive issue, [t]he district judge . . . must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law. The Court reviews the Magistrate Judge s factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard and the Magistrate Judge s legal conclusions under the more lenient contrary to law standard. Itskin v. Gibson, No. 2:10-cv-689, 2012 WL 787400, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2012) (citing Gandee v. Glaser, 785 F.Supp. 684 (S.D. Ohio 1992), aff d 19 F.3d 1432 (6th Cir.1994) (table)). Under both standards, however, the Court must provide considerable deference to the determinations made by the magistrate judge. Moran v. Svete, C-3-05-072, 2012 WL 1142929, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 4, 2012) (citations omitted). Upon review the issues presented herein pursuant to the applicable standards of review set forth above, the Court: (1) ADOPTS the Order and Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety (Doc. 10); (2) OVERRULES Petitioner s Objections to the Decision and Order Denying the Motion to Amend (Doc. 15); and (3) DISMISSES Petitioner s Amended Complaint (Doc. 9). The Clerk shall TERMINATE this case on the docket of the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 7/25/13 s/ Timothy S. Black Timothy S. Black United States District Judge

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.