Soledad v. Webb

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Maurice Lee Soledad, r,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 1:18-cv-00126

Lt. Webb, et al., Judge Michael R. Barrett

Defendants.

ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s August 19, 20191 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. (Doc. 31). Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties would waive further 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). Although objections were due by September 12, 2019, none have been filed. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 31) is ADOPTED. Consistent with the recommendation by the Magistrate Judge: Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 18) is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. _/s Michael R. Barrett____________ Michael R. Barrett, Judge United States District Court

1 That same day, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order holding that Defendants were not required to file a reply to Plaintiff’s liberally construed response, per the undersigned’s August 28, 2019 Order, to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and directing the Clerk to refile Plaintiff’s response. (Docs. 32, 33).