IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI FELICIA BROCK, : Case No. 1:19-cv-915 Plaintiff, 7 Judge Matthew W. McFarland

HAMILTON COUNTY SHERIFFS, et al., Defendants.

ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (DOC. 5) AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 4) ee This action is before the Court on Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. 5) to Magistrate Judge Litkovitz’s Report and Recommendations (Doc. 4). Magistrate Judge Litkovitz recommends that the Court dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff objected to Magistrate Litkovitz’s Report and Recommendations (Doc. 5.) This matter is now ripe for the Court's review. As required by

(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon said review, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. 5) are not well-taken and are accordingly OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 4) in its entirety. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: le Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. i Pursuant to

(a), it is hereby certified that an appeal of this

Order would not be taken in “good faith” and therefore Plaintiff is DENIED leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Plaintiff remains free to apply to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. See Callihan v. Schneider,

(6th Cir. 1999), overruling in part Floyd v. United States Postal Serv.,

(6th Cir. 1997). IT Is SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

By: ‘ JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND