From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rainey v. Patton

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
Nov 1, 2011
C-1-11-327 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 1, 2011)

Opinion

C-1-11-327.

November 1, 2011


ORDER


This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 14) to which neither party has objected.

Upon a de novo review of the record, the Court finds that the Judge has accurately set forth the applicable law and has properly applied it to the particular facts of this case. Accordingly, in the absence of any objection by plaintiff, this Court accepts the Report as uncontroverted.

The Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. no. 14) is hereby ADOPTED AND INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (doc. no. 10) is DENIED AS MOOT.

This case is RECOMMITTED to the United States Magistrate Judge for further proceedings according to law.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Rainey v. Patton

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
Nov 1, 2011
C-1-11-327 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 1, 2011)
Case details for

Rainey v. Patton

Case Details

Full title:SHANYA RAINEY, et al., Plaintiffs v. JEFF PATTON, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Nov 1, 2011

Citations

C-1-11-327 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 1, 2011)

Citing Cases

G.C. Franchising Sys. v. Kelly

It is true that "the filing of an amended complaint generally moots a pending motion to dismiss." Rainey v.…

Concentrix CVG Corp. v. Daoust

It is true that "the filing of an amended complaint generally moots a pending motion to dismiss." Rainey v.…