-TSH Brooks v. Yates et al, No. 1:2009cv00922 - Document 45 (S.D. Ohio 2010)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 35 Report and Recommendations, denying 18 Motion for Default Judgment filed by Ulious Brooks, denying 15 Motion to Compel filed by Ulious Brooks, denying 16 Motion for Order to Show Cau se filed by Ulious Brooks 17 Motion for Order to Show Cause filed by Ulious Brooks. Defendant's Motion to File Answer Instanter 23 is granted. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 8/17/2010. (km1) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/18/2010: # 1 Certified Mail Receipt) (km1).

Download PDF
-TSH Brooks v. Yates et al Doc. 45 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION ULIOS BROOKS, NO. 1:09-CV-00922 Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. HOMER YATES, et al., Defendants. This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation objections were filed. and In his Order, (doc. Report and 35), to which no Recommendation, strate Judge recommended that Plaintiff's motions for de judgment (doc. 18), to compel and to order Defendants to show cause (docs. 15, 16 and 17), which motions the Magistrate Judge construed as motions for an entry of default and/or for default judgment, be and that Defendants' tanter (doc. 23) be granted. motion for leave to file answer For the reasons indicated herein, Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation s entirety and AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge's Order. Plaintiff is an inmate at the Southern Ohio Correctional ity and has filed a civil rights action against Officer Yates, Kearns excess use ff and of Institutional force, negligence Inspector and Mahlman, retaliation alleging (doc. 35). led his complaint on December 24, 2009, and Defendants' Dockets.Justia.com answers were due on or before March 24, 2010, and March 25, 2010, respectively (Id.). Defendants did not file timely answers, and Plaintiff filed an application for entry of default on March 30, 2010, and a motion for default judgment on April 9, Defendants then filed t 2010 (Id.). ir motion to file answer instanter and a default judgment (Id.). memorandum opposing Plaintiff's motion The Magistrate Judge noted that Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does provide for entry of default against a party who .). dispos grounds, ils to plead or defend as outlined by the Rules However, Magistrate (Id.). noted that judgment, To determine whether to grant a motion the Court should look any culpability of the any prej udice to the plaintiff, meritorious defenses the Here, willful further and any doubt should be resolved in favor of the non­ defaul ting defendants, failure Judge ion on the merits is preferred to disposition on procedural moving party defaul t the to the Mag timely and any fendants may have (Id.). trate Judge determined that Defendants' respond to Plaintiff's complaint was not a ilure and therefore did not amount to conduct warranting default judgment (Id.). Further, the Magistrate Judge found that nothing in the record indicated that Plaintiff would be prejudiced by allowing Defendants to file their untimely Finally, the Magistrate Judge noted that Defendants answer (Id.). sed several meritorious defenses in the answer attached to their motion (Id.). -2­ Consequently, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff's motions be denied and that Defendants' motion The parties were served with .) . granted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and were therefore afforded proper notice of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (C), including the notice that failure to file timely objections to the Report and Recommendation would result in a waiver 947, further appeal. 949-50 See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d (6th Cir. 1981). thereto within the time Neither Party filed any objections provided for by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (C). When no objections have been filed, the Court need only satisfy itself that re is no error on the face of the record in order to accept the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150(1985) ("It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate judge's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings"). Having reviewed this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), the Court finds no clear error on the face of the record and further finds the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation well-reasoned, thorough, and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's correct. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendat entirety and AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge's Order -3­ (doc. Court in its 35) and DENIES Plaintiff's motions for default judgment (doc. 18), to compel, and to order Defendants to show cause (docs. 15, 16 and 17) and GRANTS Defendants' motion to file answer instanter . 23). SO ORDERED. Dated: <t/11 J)d I ' egel United States Senior -4­ st 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.