From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Spurlock v. Ruckel

United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio
Jan 2, 2024
1:23-cv-721 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 2, 2024)

Opinion

1:23-cv-721

01-02-2024

JOSEPH SPURLOCK, Plaintiff, v. CHAPLAIN RUCKEL, et al., Defendants.


ENTRY AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MATTHEW W. MCFARLAND JUDGE

The Court has reviewed the pending Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Karen L. Litkovitz (Doc. 4), to whom this case is referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Plaintiff failed to timely file objections to the Report and Recommendation in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Thus, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4) in its entirety. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Court DISMISSES the following: (1) any § 1983 claim against ORDC itself, and (2) Plaintiff's RLUIPA claims for damages against all Defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Spurlock v. Ruckel

United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio
Jan 2, 2024
1:23-cv-721 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 2, 2024)
Case details for

Spurlock v. Ruckel

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH SPURLOCK, Plaintiff, v. CHAPLAIN RUCKEL, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio

Date published: Jan 2, 2024

Citations

1:23-cv-721 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 2, 2024)