Thomas v. Erdos et al, No. 1:2016cv00793 - Document 13 (S.D. Ohio 2016)

Court Description: DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 11 ). Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 12/5/2016. (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
Thomas v. Erdos et al Doc. 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION JONATHAN T. THOMAS, Plaintiff, vs. RON ERDOS, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : Case No. 1:16-cv-793 Judge Timothy S. Black Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 11) 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 November 2, 2016, submitted a Report and Recommendations. (Doc. 11). No objections were filed. 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, Plaintiff’s First Amendment, right to petition the government/access the courts claims against Defendants Noland, Oppy, Mahlman, Erdos, Miller, and the Chief Inspector; and Plaintiff’s claim regarding the loss of his personal property against Dockets.Justia.com Dawson; and his Eighth Amendment claims against Holbrook are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1). IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 12/5/16 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.