Summary
imposing pre-filing restrictions on pro se litigant instead of awarding attorneys' fees
Summary of this case from McKenna v. Nestle Purina Petcare Co.Opinion
Case Number: 1:08cv36.
April 3, 2009
ORDER
This matter 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 Timothy S. Black. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings and filed with this Court on February 18, 2009 a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 39). Subsequently, the plaintiff filed objections to such Report and Recommendation (Doc. 44).
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 Recommendations should be adopted.
1. Plaintiff's motions for leave to amend and serve (Docs. 11, 12, 13 and 14) are DENIED.
2. Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 16) is TERMINATED AS MOOT.
3. Defendant's motion to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigator (Doc. 17) is GRANTED; plaintiff is declared a harassing and vexatious litigator such that pre-filing restrictions will be imposed by separate Order.
4. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 21) is GRANTED; plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 32) is DENIED and this case is hereby CLOSED, except for the Court setting forth by separate Order the specific restrictions to be imposed on the plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Exhibit