Warner v. Henschen
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