Thomas v. Erdos et al, No. 1:2016cv00793 - Document 84 (S.D. Ohio 2018)

Court Description: ORDER denying plaintiff's 82 Motion to Appoint Counsel. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that defendant Irvin and Scott's 72 MOTION to Dismiss be Granted and the claims of these defendant be Dismissed under FRCP 4(m) for lack of service; Pla intiff's 83 MOTION for default judgment be Denied; plaintiff's 58 MOTION for Partial summary judgment against defendant Oppy be Denied; Defendants' 72 MOTION for Summary Judgment be Granted and that plaintiff's claims agains t Hale, Fri, and Hutchinson related to the alleged April 2016 incidents be Dismissed with prejudice and the remaining claims against these defendants and against defendants Cool, Miller, Dawson, Mahlman and Oppy be Dismissed without prejudice for fai lure to exhaust administrative remedies. ( Objections to R&R due by 8/17/2018). Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 8/3/2018. (art)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)