Durham v. Chief Bureau of Classification and Reception et al, No. 1:2013cv00226 - Document 102 (S.D. Ohio 2015)

Court Description: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 93 ). Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 9/30/15. (mr)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Download PDF
Durham v. Chief Bureau of Classification and Reception et al Doc. 102 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION ROY A. DURHAM, Plaintiff, vs. WARDEN MICHAEL SHEETS, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : Case No. 1:13-cv-226 Judge Timothy S. Black Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 93) This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on July 2, 2015, submitted a Report and Recommendations. (Doc. 93). The Petitioner timely filed objections. (Doc. 100). 1 As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does determine that such Report and Recommendations should be and is hereby adopted in its entirety. Accordingly: 1 Plaintiff’s objections reiterate the arguments set forth in his memorandum contra to the motion for judgment on the pleadings and in his motion to stay the proceedings (See Docs. 83,91). These arguments were fully addressed in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations. (See Doc. 93). This Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning as explained therein. Dockets.Justia.com 1. The Report and Recommendations (Doc. 93) is ADOPTED; 2. Plaintiff’s motion to stay (Doc. 91) is DENIED; 3. Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 65) is GRANTED; 4. Defendants’ motion for extension of time (Doc. 101) is DENIED as moot; and 5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3), an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore, Plaintiff is denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis. 6. The Clerk shall enter judgment according, whereupon this civil action is TERMINATED in this Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 9/30/2015 /s/Timothy S. Black Timothy S. Black United States District Judge 2

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.