Taylor v. Kashubeck

Full title: BRENTFORD TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. DR. KASHUBECK, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Sep 9, 2009

Civil Action 2:09-CV-518 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 9, 2009)

Opinion

Civil Action 2:09-CV-518.

September 9, 2009

ORDER

EDMUND SARGUS JR., District Judge

On August 26, 2009, the United States Magistrate Judge issued an Order and Report and Recommendation denying plaintiff's renewed motion for the appointment of counsel and recommending the denial of plaintiff's renewed motion for entry of default and default judgment as against defendant Karnes. Order and Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 26. This matter is now before the Court on plaintiff's pro se objections to that Order and Report and Recommendation. Doc. No. 29.

Counsel was previously appointed for plaintiff as to his claims for interim injunctive relief relating to the alleged denial of psychotropic medication while detained at the Franklin County Jail. Order, Doc. No. 13. The Magistrate Judge denied plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel in connection with his remaining claims, reasoning that "the case has not progressed to the point that the Court is able to even preliminarily evaluate the merits of plaintiff's remaining claims." Order and Report and Recommendation, p. 1. Because this order of the Magistrate Judge is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); F.R. Civ. P. 72, plaintiff's objection to that order is DENIED.

Plaintiff also objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that his renewed motion for entry of default and default judgment as against defendant Karnes be denied. The Magistrate Judge correctly based her recommendation on the fact that defendant Karnes' answer was filed in conformity with the Court's orders. See Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 15; Order, Doc. No. 23.¹ Having considered the Report and Recommendation de novo, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); F.R. Civ. P. 72, the Court DENIES plaintiff's objection to the Report and Recommendation recommending that his motion for entry of default and default judgment be denied.

1 In his objections, plaintiff seems to suggest that it was his appointed counsel who calculated the date by which defendant's answer was due. Plaintiff is mistaken; it was the Court that established the time by which defendant Karnes' response to the Complaint was due.

The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. Plaintiff's motion for entry of default and default judgment, Doc. No. 25, is DENIED.