Rogers v. Reed et al, No. 2:2014cv02750 - Document 63 (S.D. Ohio 2018)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER adopting 61 the Report and Recommendation; denying 57 Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 11/9/18. (jk) (This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Rogers v. Reed et al Doc. 63 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Alterik Rogers, Plaintiff, V. Case No. 2:14-cv-2750 Sgt. Manard Reed, et al., Judge Michaei H. Watson Defendants. Magistrate Judge Vascura OPINION AND ORDER This case had previously been stayed pending resolution of a state-court matter, State v. Rogers, Case No. 14CR00012, In the Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas. See ECF No. 53. Upon resolution of the state court case, Sgt. Manard Reed and Officer Thompson ("Defendants") moved for reconsideration of the Court's denial of summary judgment, asserting that Plaintiff Alterik Rogers' ("PlalntlfT) conviction of menacing by stalking prevented Plaintiff from further litigating his excessive force claims against them. ECF No. 57. On October 12, 2018, the Magistrate Judge Issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that Defendant's motion for reconsideration be denied. ECF No. 61. The R&R notified the parties of their right to file objections to the R&R pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1). R&R 9-10, ECF No. 61. The R&R further advised the parties that the failure to object to the R&R within fourteen days would result In a waiver ofthe right to de nova review by the District Judge and Dockets.Justia.com waiver of the right to appeai the decision of the District Court adopting the R&R. Id. The deadiine for fiiing such objections has passed, and no objections were fiied. Having received no objections, the R&R is ADOPTED. Defendants' motion for reconsideration, EOF No. 57, is DENIED. Moreover, because the state court case has been resoived and the Magistrate Judge has vacated the stay, the Court wiii proceed to triai on PiaintifTs remaining claims against Defendants. IT IS SO ORDERED. MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Case No. 2:14-cv-2750 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.
