Anderson v. Spoljarik

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

ARNOLD ANDERSON,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:18-cv-380 v. JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE Magistrate Judge Bowman JONATHAN SPOLJARIK, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s March 6, 2020, Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 74). The Magistrate recommends the following: 1. The Court should GRANT in part and DENY in part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 48):

a. The Court should DENY Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Hatfield and Spoljaric and Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim against Spoljaric because of the significant issues of material fact;

b. The Court should DENY Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive and declaratory relief, but without prejudice to renew once counsel have been heard on the issue of mootness;

c. The Court should GRANT Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment in all other respects;

2. The Court should DENY Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 61) and Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 69); and

3. The Court should DENY Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 54). The R&R advised both parties that a failure to object within the 14 days specified by the R&R may result in forfeiture of rights on appeal, which includes the right to District Court review. (See Doc. 74, #890). See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-53 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting § 636(b)(1)(C), intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”); Berkshire v. Beauvais, 928 F.3d 520, 530-31 (6th Cir. 2019) (noting “fail[ure] to file an objection to the magistrate judge’s R&R ... is forfeiture, not waiver’) (emphasis original); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The time for filing objections has passed and none have been filed. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations, and DENIES the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 48) as to (1) the Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants Hatfield and Spoljaric, and (2) the First Amendment claim against Spoljaric; DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 48) on the claims for declaratory or injunctive relief, but without prejudice to the Defendants’ ability to raise those arguments later; GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 48) in all other respects; DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Doc. 61); DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 69); and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. 54), but without prejudice to the Plaintiffs ability to re-raise the arguments therein at a later time. SO ORDERED.

April 2, 2020 DATE DOUGLAS R. COLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE