From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Newsome v. Erwin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Nov 26, 2013
Case No. 3:01-cv-281 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 26, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. 3:01-cv-281

11-26-2013

FRANK NEWSOME, Plaintiff, v. JERRY ERWIN, et al., Defendants.


JUDGE WALTER H. RICE


DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. #29); OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REOPEN CASE (DOC. #26) AND MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (DOC. #27); STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SETTLEMENT (DOC. #28); CAPTIONED CAUSE REMAINS CLOSED

Based on the reasoning and citations of authority set forth in the United States Magistrate Judge's November 6, 2013, Report and Recommendations (Doc. #29), as well as upon a thorough de novo review of this Court's file and the applicable law, the Court ADOPTS said judicial filing in its entirety. The Court notes that no objections have been filed within the time allotted.

Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case (Doc. #26) and related Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. #27) are OVERRULED. Plaintiff's Motion for Settlement (Doc. #28) is STRICKEN from the record, and Plaintiff is cautioned that further repetitive filings may be met with monetary sanctions.

The captioned cause remains closed on 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

Newsome v. Erwin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Nov 26, 2013
Case No. 3:01-cv-281 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 26, 2013)
Case details for

Newsome v. Erwin

Case Details

Full title:FRANK NEWSOME, Plaintiff, v. JERRY ERWIN, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Nov 26, 2013

Citations

Case No. 3:01-cv-281 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 26, 2013)