Gipson v. Hamilton County Common Pleas Court

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

DAVID GIPSON, Case No. 1:22-cv-764 Plaintiff, Barrett, J. Litkovitz, M.J. vs.

HAMILTON COUNTY COMMON ORDER AND REPORT AND PLEAS COURT, et al., RECOMMENDATION Defendants. This matter is before the Court on plaintiff David Gipson’s motions for preliminary injunction (Docs. 2, 25) and motion for electronic case filing rights (Doc. 3). For the reasons stated in the District Judge’s July 5, 2023 Order adopting the undersigned’s report and recommendation (Doc. 34), the Court recommends that plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunction (Docs. 2, 25) be DENIED. Regarding plaintiff’s motion for electronic case filing rights (Doc. 3), plaintiff’s motion reads, in full, as follows: “NOW COMES, Plaintiff David Gipson, in Propria Persona, Sui Juris and is one of the people of the United States, and in this court of record in the above-captioned matter, respectfully requests all subsequent filings to be completed in the courts electronic filing system.” (Id.). This does not conform to the form proffered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, which includes a series of affirmations regarding the rules and requirements for electronic case filing. See https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/cm-ecf-button2 (last visited July 11, 2023). Plaintiff’s motion for electronic case filing rights (Doc. 3) is therefore DENIED subject to reconsideration upon his submission of a substantially conforming motion. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff’s motion for electronic case filing rights (Doc. 3) is DENIED subject to reconsideration upon his submission of a substantially conforming motion. IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 1. Plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunction (Docs. 2, 25) be DENIED.

Karen L. Litkovitz Chief United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

DAVID GIPSON, Case No. 1:22-cv-764 Plaintiff, Barrett, J. Litkovitz, M.J. vs.

HAMILTON COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT, et al., Defendants. NOTICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on timely motion for an extension. 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. If the Report and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).