IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI KIJAI KHAMISL, et al., : Case No. 1:18-cv-87 Plaintiffs, ; Judge Matthew W. McFarland □ Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz vs. JOSEPH DETERS, et al., é Defendants. :

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 177), OVERULING OBJECTIONS, AND DENYING AS MOOT PENDING RESPONSES AND MOTIONS (Docs. 190, 192, 194, 196, 198)

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz (Doc. 177), to whom this case is referred pursuant to

(b). In the Report, Magistrate Judge Litkovitz recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed Objections to the Report, in response to which Defendants filed memoranda supporting the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition. Plaintiffs also filed subsequent motions. As required by

(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ objections are not well-taken and are accordingly OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 177) in its entirety. Accordingly, the Court orders as follows: 1. Plaintiffs’ complaint is hereby DISMISSED.

2. The Court CERTIFIES pursuant to

(a) that for the reasons expressed in the Report, an appeal of this Order adopting the Report would not be taken in good faith, and therefore DENIES plaintiffs leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Plaintiffs remain free to apply to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. Callihan v. Schneider,

(6th Cir. 1999). 3. Plaintiffs’ responses to the Report and motions to immediately vacate the criminal judgment are DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Yeh weil) By: ‘ JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND