From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barton v. Hurley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Feb 6, 2014
Case No. 3:14-cv-001 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 6, 2014)

Opinion

Case No. 3:14-cv-001

02-06-2014

DOUGLAS C. BARTON, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN L. HURLEY, et al., Defendants.


JUDGE WALTER H. RICE

DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. #10); OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS THERETO (DOC. #13); OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EMERGENCY HEARING (DOC. #9)

On January 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Emergency Hearing (Doc. #9), asking the Court for an emergency injunction vacating a Temporary Protection Order issued by the Greene County Domestic Relations Court. That same day, Chief Magistrate Judge Ovington issued a Report and Recommendations (Doc. #10), recommending that the Court overrule Plaintiff's motion. She found that he had not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, particularly in light of the probable applicability of the doctrines of Younger abstention and absolute judicial immunity. She also found that Plaintiff had not identified circumstances showing irreparable harm. Finally, she noted the absence of facts showing that the requested relief would cause harm to others or benefit the public.

On January 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendations (Doc. #13), incorporating by reference his Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #14), which was filed the same day, and focuses entirely on the potential merits of his claims. Plaintiff fails to identify any particular part of the judicial filing that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a).

Based on the reasoning and citations of authority set forth by Chief Magistrate Judge Ovington in her January 23, 2014, Report and Recommendations (Doc. #10), as well as upon a thorough de novo review of this Court's file and the applicable law, the Court ADOPTS said judicial filing in its entirety. Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. #13) to the Report and Recommendations are OVERRULED, as is Plaintiff's Motion for Emergency Hearing (Doc. #9).

__________

WALTER H. RICE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Barton v. Hurley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION
Feb 6, 2014
Case No. 3:14-cv-001 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 6, 2014)
Case details for

Barton v. Hurley

Case Details

Full title:DOUGLAS C. BARTON, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN L. HURLEY, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Feb 6, 2014

Citations

Case No. 3:14-cv-001 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 6, 2014)