Opinion
Case No. 1:18-cv-809
09-15-2020
HILARY LEVANDOFSKY, Plaintiff, v. ABUBAKAR ATIQ DURRANI, M.D., et al., Defendants.
Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (Doc. 24), ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 22), GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (Doc. 15), AND TERMINATING CASE
This action is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22). Magistrate Judge Bowman recommended that the Court grant Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 15) and dismiss the case. Plaintiff Hilary Levandofksy filed objections (Doc. 24). This matter is ripe for the Court's review.
Levandofsky primarily takes issue with Magistrate Judge Bowman's application of Ohio's four-year statute of repose, R.C. 2305.113(C), resulting in dismissal of her claims. (Id. at PageID 265.) But as Magistrate Judge Bowman points out, over four years elapsed between Levandofsky's surgery in July 2009 and Dr. Durrani's flight to Pakistan in November 2013. (Doc. 22 at PageID 257.) For that reason, the statute of repose elapsed before Dr. Durrani's absconding could toll the clock under R.C. 2305.15.
The rest of Levandofsky's objections are recitations of several arguments she made in opposition to the motion for judgment on the pleadings. Magistrate Judge Bowman considered and rejected those arguments. Objections to reports and recommendations are not the vehicle for rehashing arguments a magistrate judge has already addressed, so the Court will not consider those arguments further. See Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991); Nickelson v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst., No. 1:11-CV-00334, 2012 WL 700827, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 1, 2012).
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon review, the Court finds that Levandofsky's objections (Doc. 24) are not well-taken and are accordingly OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) in its entirety and GRANTS Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 15). As the Court's ruling on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) disposes of all claims in this action, this action is hereby TERMINATED on the Court's docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
By: /s/_________
JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND