From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Walling v. Wagner

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Jan 28, 2015
Case No. 3:14-cv-406 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 28, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 3:14-cv-406

01-28-2015

LARRY DWAYNE WALLING, Plaintiff, v. H. CHARLES WAGNER, Defendant.


DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. #3); DISMISSING COMPLAINT (DOC. #2) WITHOUT PREJUDICE; TERMINATION ENTRY

Based on the reasoning and citations of authority set forth by United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman, in his December 22, 2014, Report and Recommendations (Doc. #3), as well as upon a thorough de novo review of this Court's file and the applicable law, this Court ADOPTS said judicial filing in its entirety. The Court notes that, although Plaintiff requested, and was granted, an extension of time to file objections to the Report and Recommendations, no objections have been filed within the time allotted.

Because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims, Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. #2) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Judgment will be entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff.

The captioned case is hereby ordered terminated upon the docket records of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, at Dayton. Date: January 28, 2015

/s/_________

WALTER H. RICE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Walling v. Wagner

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Jan 28, 2015
Case No. 3:14-cv-406 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 28, 2015)
Case details for

Walling v. Wagner

Case Details

Full title:LARRY DWAYNE WALLING, Plaintiff, v. H. CHARLES WAGNER, Defendant.

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

Date published: Jan 28, 2015

Citations

Case No. 3:14-cv-406 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 28, 2015)

Citing Cases

Philip v. Vaught

Here, because Philip appears to be noticing his intent to sue private individuals, screening under Section…

Cornell v. Fox News Network

"[T]here is a rebuttable presumption that a prisoner retains his former domicile after incarceration," rather…