IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION AT COVINGTON

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-00018 (WOB-CJS)

TIMOTHY RAY LITTLE PLAINTIFF

VS. ORDER

TERRY CARL, ET AL. DEFENDANT

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 61) and no objections having been filed, and the Court being sufficiently advised, IT IS ORDERED that the above Report and Recommendation (Doc. 44) be, and is hereby, ADOPTED, and that defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 49) be, and is hereby, GRANTED.1 A separate judgment shall enter concurrently herewith.

1 The Court does not adopt the reasoning of Section II. A of the Report and Recommendation (“Official Capacity Claims”) inasmuch as it states, incorrectly, that Kenton County (which would be the construed official capacity defendant) is a state agency not subject to suit under

. See Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle,

(1977) (“The bar of the Eleventh Amendment to suit in Federal courts extends to States and state officials in appropriate circumstances ... but does not extend to counties and similar municipal corporations.”). See also Meirs v. Ottawa Cnty., No. 18-2341,

, at *4 (6th Cir. July 13, 2020) (“Local governing bodies, like municipalities and counties, may be sued for constitutional violations that are the result of “a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or This 31st day of August 2020. SE □ . KA a SO, Signed By: WO 88 William Oo. Bertelsman □□□□ “Gus United States District Judge

decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body's officers.” (citing Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services of the City of New York,

(1978) (suit against County for death of inmate in jail). However, while Kenton County is subject to suit under § 1983, summary judgment in its favor is nonetheless appropriate because the record does not support an official capacity claim under Monell as a matter of law.