From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Robinette v. Columbus Police Department

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Apr 8, 2010
Case No. 2:09-cv-629 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 8, 2010)

Opinion

Case No. 2:09-cv-629.

April 8, 2010


OPINION AND ORDER


This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss by Defendant Grandview Heights Division of Police. (Doc. # 23.) That motion is unopposed.

On January 25, 2010, this Court granted Defendant Columbus Police Department's motion to dismiss the claims filed against it. In that Opinion and Order, this Court concluded that Plaintiff failed to allege any facts that would support a claim against either the City of Columbus or the Grandview Heights Police Department that would be actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Here, Plaintiff does not allege that the execution or custom of the City of Grandview Heights or Columbus caused her injuries. Therefore, even when construing Plaintiff's Amended Complaint liberally and accepting all of the factual assertions as true, the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.

(Doc. # 20 at 4.) The claims filed against the Columbus Police Department and the Grandview Heights Police Department are identical. The Court hereby incorporates in its entirety its Opinion and Order granting the Columbus Police Department's motion to dismiss, and, for the same reasons set forth in it GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss by Defendant Grandview Heights Division of Police. (Doc. # 23.) The Clerk is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT in accordance with this Opinion and Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Robinette v. Columbus Police Department

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Apr 8, 2010
Case No. 2:09-cv-629 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 8, 2010)
Case details for

Robinette v. Columbus Police Department

Case Details

Full title:BRENDA ROBINETTE, Plaintiff, v. COLUMBUS POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.…

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

Date published: Apr 8, 2010

Citations

Case No. 2:09-cv-629 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 8, 2010)