Bell v. Mercy Hospital

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI WAKEITHA M. BELL, : Case No. 1:23-cv-212 Plaintiff, Judge Matthew W. McFarland : Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman v. MERCY HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 5), OVERRULING OBJECTIONS, and TERMINATING CASE This action is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5). Magistrate Judge Bowman recommends dismissing this case with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff objects generally, but her objections fail to point out specific error. Such objections have the same effect as a failure to object. Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991).

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon such review, the Court finds that Plaintiff's objections fail to identify any error and are accordingly OVERRULED.

Thus, the Court ORDERS as follows: (1) The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5). (2) This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for the reasons stated in the Reports. (3) Plaintiff's motion to add more hospitals (Doc. 9) is DENIED AS MOOT. (4) The Court CERTIFIES pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(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 plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 203 (2007). (5) Because the above-captioned case constitutes the third case initiated by Plaintiff in forma pauperis as to which dismissal with prejudice has been recommended for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Plaintiff is hereby WARNED that if she files additional cases subject to summary dismissal on initial screening, she is likely to be deemed to be a vexatious litigator and may be subjected to sanctions and/or pre-filing restrictions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO By: Wh w. 4 1 JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND