Duwe v. Montgomery

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

JOHNNY LEE DUWE,

Plaintiff, : Case No. 3:25-cv-099

District Judge Thomas M. Rose - vs - Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

THE HONORABLE MARY E. MONTGOMERY In her official capacity as Judge of the Montgomery County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas, et al.,

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 3). On the basis of the reasoning set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations of May 28, 2025 (ECF No. 22), Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction must be denied on the authority of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

May 29, 2025. s/ Michael R. Merz United States Magistrate Judge

1 NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen days after being served with this Report and Recommendations. Because this document is being served by mail, three days are added under Fed.R.Civ.P. 6, but service is complete when the document is mailed, not when it is recetved. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. A party may respond to another party’s objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. #