Brooks v. Dillow, No. 1:2015cv00812 - Document 51 (S.D. Ohio 2016)

Court Description: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 31 ) OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 7/19/2016. (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
Brooks v. Dillow Doc. 51 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION ULIOUS BROOKS, Plaintiff, vs. SERGEANT MIKE DILLOW, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : Case No. 1:15-cv-812 Judge Timothy S. Black Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 31) OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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 Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court, and, on May 5, 2016, submitted a Report and Recommendations (“R&R”). (Doc. 31). No objections were filed. 1 1 After the submission of the R&R, Plaintiff made a number of filings. (See Docs. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 46, and 47). However, these filings are largely unrelated to the sexual harassment claim alleged against Defendant Spradlin, which is the only claim addressed in this R&R. (See generally Doc. 31). To the extent Plaintiff intended these filings to serve as objections to the R&R, they are overruled because they fail to dispute any specific portion of the R&R. Plaintiff states that he is suffering mentally from Defendant Spradlin’s sexual assault. (Doc. 32 at 1). However, for the reasons set forth in the R&R, mental suffering—alone—does not make Plaintiff’s claim actionable. (See Doc. 31 at 5–10). Plaintiff also asks the Court to withdraw his motion for summary judgment with respect to his sexual harassment claim because that claim has been dismissed. (Doc. 42 at 1). Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s misapprehension as to the status of his claim (it is only now dismissed), the Court never received such a motion for summary judgment, and therefore cannot consider it as an objection. Dockets.Justia.com 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 the R&R (Doc. 31) should be and is hereby ADOPTED in its entirety. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons: 1. Defendant Spradlin’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against him (Doc. 20) is GRANTED; and 2. All claims alleged against Defendant Spradlin are DISMISSED with prejudice; only Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Dillow remain pending. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 7/19/16 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.