Manning v. Erdos

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

De’Amontae Manning,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:22cv371

Ronald Erdos, et al.

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed by the Magistrate Judge on December 11, 2024 (Doc. 116). Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties may forfeit rights on appeal if they failed to file objections to the R&R in a timely manner. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). No objections to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Doc. 116) have been filed and the time to do so has expired. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 116) of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. Consistent with the recommendation by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 100) is DENIED and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 107) is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Michael R. Barrett Michael R. Barrett, Judge United States District Court