Kendrick v. Chamber-Smith

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Mark Kendrick,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:22-cv-00170

Annette Chamber-Smith, et al., Judge Michael R. Barrett

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). (Doc. 7). Plaintiff received proper notice under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that he would waive further appeal if he failed to file objections to the R&R in a timely manner. (Doc. 7 PageID 60-61); see United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). The Court has not received objections to the R&R, and the time to file any objections has passed. See S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2(a)(2). In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 7) is ADOPTED in full. Consistent with the R&R, it is ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), WITH THE EXCEPTION of his First and Eighth Amendment claims against the two John Doe correctional officers and his First Amendment legal mail claim against Defendant Erdos, and those claims shall move forward.1 The Court further CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith, and

1 The Court reminds Plaintiff that he must file a motion to issue service, including United States Marshal and summons forms, if and when he discovers the identity of the two John Doe Defendants through discovery. (Doc. 7 PageID 59-60). therefore DENIES Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. IT IS SO ORDERED. _/s Michael R. Barrett________ Michael R. Barrett, Judge United States District Court