Lane v. Wexford Health Sources (Contreator) et al, No. 2:2010cv00389 - Document 84 (S.D. Ohio 2014)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER adopting 81 the Report and Recommendation, denying 74 , 76 and 78 Plaintiff's Motions to Dismiss; denying 83 Plaintiff's Motion for Writ of Mandamus. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 4/18/14. (jk1)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION William L. Lane, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2:10-cv-389 Wexford Health Sources, Judge Michael H. Watson (Contreator), et al., Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff filed this prisoner civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 on April 29, 2010. The Court issued an opinion and order, as well as final judgment, dismissing this action on August 12, 2011. ECF Nos. 68 & 69. Plaintiff appealed. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of this Court on January 8, 2013 and issued a mandate to that effect on January 31, 2013. ECF Nos. 72 & 73. Since the Sixth Circuit issued its mandate, Plaintiff has filed three motions to dismiss this action. ECF Nos. 74, 76, and 83. He also filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the Court to rule on his motions to dismiss. ECF No. 83. On March 27, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff's motions to dismiss. ECF No. 81. In his R&R, the Magistrate Judge identified the chief flaw in Plaintiff's motions: final judgment was already entered in this case so there is no legal basis to enter a second order or judgment dismissing Plaintiff's claims. R&R 2, ECF No. 81. The Magistrate Judge warned the parties of the consequences of failing timely to file objections to the R&R. To date, Plaintiff has not filed any objections and the time to do so has passed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's March 27, 2014 R&R and DENIES Plaintiff's motions to dismiss. The Court also DENIES Plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandamus as moot. The Clerk shall remove ECF Nos. 74, 76, 78, and 83 from the Civil Justice Reform Act motions report. IT IS SO ORDERED. M CHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE United States District Court Page 2 of 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.
