Warner v. Henschen

District Court, S.D. Ohio

Warner v. Henschen

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

STEVEN D. WARNER,

Plaintiff, Case No. 3:24-cv-287

vs.

A.P.A. OFFICER ASHLEY HENSCHEN, District Judge Michael J. Newman et al., Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura

Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER: (1) ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 9); (2) DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S FEDERAL CLAIMS; (3) DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S STATE- LAW CLAIMS; AND (4) TERMINATING THIS CASE ON THE DOCKET ______________________________________________________________________________

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura (Doc. No. 9), to whom this case was referred pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b). Noting that no objections have been filed and that the time for filing objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has expired, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 9) is ADOPTED; (2) Plaintiff’s1 federal claims, brought under

42 U.S.C. § 1983

, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and (3) Plaintiff’s state-law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1367

(c)(3).

1 Plaintiff’s proceeds pro se in this case and, consequently, his factual allegations are accepted as true and his complaint is liberally construed in his favor. See Estelle v. Gamble,

429 U.S. 97, 106

(1976) The Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(a)(3), that an appeal of this Order

would not be taken in good faith and, consequently, DENIES Plaintiff leave to appeal this Order in forma pauperis. IT IS SO ORDERED. December 20, 2024 s/Michael J. Newman Hon. Michael J. Newman United States District Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown