From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anderson v. County of Hamilton

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
Jul 2, 2010
Case No. 1:09cv798 (S.D. Ohio Jul. 2, 2010)

Opinion

Case No. 1:09cv798.

July 2, 2010


ORDER


This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendations filed by the Magistrate Judge on June 7, 2010 (Doc. 62) and June 8, 2010 (Doc. 64).

Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the Report and Recommendation in a timely manner. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). No objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation have been filed.

Having reviewed this matter de novo pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to be correct.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge are hereby ADOPTED. Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 58) is DENIED as moot; Defendant Coleman's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 41), Defendant Caster's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 42), and Defendant Haynes' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 50) are GRANTED. The federal claims against Defendants Haynes, Caster and Coleman are DISMISSED with prejudice and the state claims against Defendants Haynes, Caster and Coleman are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Exhibit


Summaries of

Anderson v. County of Hamilton

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
Jul 2, 2010
Case No. 1:09cv798 (S.D. Ohio Jul. 2, 2010)
Case details for

Anderson v. County of Hamilton

Case Details

Full title:Billy F. Anderson, Plaintiff, v. County of Hamilton, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

Date published: Jul 2, 2010

Citations

Case No. 1:09cv798 (S.D. Ohio Jul. 2, 2010)