Hall v. Wetzel
Hall v. Wetzel
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Edwin Hall,
Plaintiff, : Case No. 2:20-cv-1501
-vs- Judge Sarah D. Morrison Chief Magistrate Judge Preston Deavers Richard D. Wetzel, et al., : Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon consideration of an Order and Initial Screen Report and Recommendation (R&R) issued by the Magistrate Judge on August 14, 2020. (ECF No. 7). In that filing, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff Edwin Hall’s action be dismissed pursuant to Younger v. Harris,
401 U.S. 37(1971). Alternatively, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of the case as to Defendants Judge Richard D. Wetzel and Prosecutor Charles T. McConville on immunity grounds and as to Defendant Public Defender James Pyle for failure to state a claim under § 1915. Lastly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claim for attorney malpractice. The time for filing objections has passed, and no objections have been filed. For the reasons set forth in the R&R, the Court hereby ADOPTS the R&R (ECF No. 7) and DISMISSES Plaintiff Edwin Hall’s Complaint in its entirety. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this order to the Ohio Attorney General’s Office, 150 E.Gay St., 16th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215. With respect to any application by petitioner to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, the Court certifies pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and the reasons set forth in the R&R that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in “good faith,” and therefore DENIES petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a); Kincade v. Sparkman,
117 F.3d 949, 952(6th Cir. 1997). IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Sarah D. Morrison SARAH D. MORRISON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Reference
- Status
- Unknown