Johnson v. Cool

Opinion

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

WILLIE JOHNSON, : : Plaintiff, : Case No. 1:22-cv-31 : vs. : Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins : WILLIAM COOL, et al., : : Defendants. :

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry on June 26, 2025. Doc. 49. The Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint as to the remaining John Doe Defendants. No objections have been filed and the time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has expired. Having carefully reviewed the comprehensive findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge and finding no clear error, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (advisory committee notes from 1983 amendment) (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation”); see e.g., Roane v. Warden of Corr. Reception Ctr., No. 2:22-cv-2768, 2022 WL 16535903, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 28, 2022). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Complaint be DISMISSED as to all the John Doe Defendants and that this case be TERMINATED on the Court’s docket. For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the Court certifies that an appeal of this Order would lack an arguable basis in law or in fact and thus would not be taken in good faith. The Court accordingly DENIES Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2025 ° Hott Jeffery P. Hopkins United States District Judge