From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barton v. Hurley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Apr 10, 2014
Case No. 3:14-cv-001 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 10, 2014)

Opinion

Case No. 3:14-cv-001

04-10-2014

DOUGLAS C. BARTON, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN L. HURLEY, et al., Defendants.


JUDGE WALTER H. RICE

DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. #20);

OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS THERETO (DOC. #22);

SUSTAINING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. #11);

OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF (DOC. #21); TERMINATION ENTRY

On March 27, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington issued a Report and Recommendations (Doc. #20), recommending that the Court sustain Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #11), and dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice. She found that Defendants were entitled to absolute judicial immunity on Plaintiff's claim for money damages, and that the abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), barred Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief. Plaintiff filed timely Objections to the Report and Recommendations (Doc. #22). He also filed another Motion for Emergency Injunctive Relief (Doc. #23), asserting the same arguments raised in his Objections.

Based on the reasoning and citations of authority set forth by the Magistrate Judge in her March 27, 2014, Report and Recommendations, as well as upon a thorough de novo review of this Court's file and the applicable law, this Court ADOPTS said judicial filing (Doc. #20) in its entirety, and OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections thereto (Doc. #22). In overruling the Objections, the Court notes that "[t]he policies underlying Younger axe fully applicable to noncriminal judicial proceedings when important state interests are involved." Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). For the same reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's Motion for Emergency Injunctive Relief (Doc. #21). The Court SUSTAINS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #11), and DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint WITH PREJUDICE.

Judgment will be entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff.

The captioned case is hereby ordered terminated upon the docket records of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, at Dayton.

__________

WALTER H. RICE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Barton v. Hurley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Apr 10, 2014
Case No. 3:14-cv-001 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 10, 2014)
Case details for

Barton v. Hurley

Case Details

Full title:DOUGLAS C. BARTON, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN L. HURLEY, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Date published: Apr 10, 2014

Citations

Case No. 3:14-cv-001 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 10, 2014)