From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Winkle v. Loranger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
Jun 20, 2014
Case No. 3:14-cv-020 (S.D. Ohio Jun. 20, 2014)

Opinion

Case No. 3:14-cv-020

06-20-2014

MARK R. WINKLE, Plaintiff, v. CAROL S. LORANGER, et al., Defendants.


District Judge Thomas M. Rose

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz


ENTRY AND ORDER

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz (Doc. No. 29), to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '636(b), and noting that no objections have been filed thereto and that the time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) expired on June 16, 2014, hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendations.

It is therefore ORDERED that the Amended Complaint be dismissed without prejudice as to Defendants Arne Duncan and the United States Department of Education for want of prosecution. Because the case is no longer pending as to those Defendants, their Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Doc. No. 35) is DENIED AS MOOT.

Because the case has been dismissed as to all Defendants sought to be enjoined in Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 34) is DENIED AS MOOT.

This Entry and Order disposes of all remaining claims and parties. The Clerk is accordingly ORDERED to enter judgment, terminating this case on the Court's docket.

__________

Thomas M. Rose

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Winkle v. Loranger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
Jun 20, 2014
Case No. 3:14-cv-020 (S.D. Ohio Jun. 20, 2014)
Case details for

Winkle v. Loranger

Case Details

Full title:MARK R. WINKLE, Plaintiff, v. CAROL S. LORANGER, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Jun 20, 2014

Citations

Case No. 3:14-cv-020 (S.D. Ohio Jun. 20, 2014)