Sullivan v. Hamilton County Common Pleas Court

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI JAMES SULLIVAN, : Case No. 1:22-cv-763 Plaintiff, . Judge Matthew W. McFarland

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

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz (Doc. 69), to whom this case is referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Plaintiff timely filed Objections (Doc. 77) in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).1 Defendants timely responded to Plaintiff's objections. (See Doc. 79.) However, Plaintiffs objections are “vague, general, [and] conclusory” and, consequently, failed to “meet the requirement of specific objections[.]” Cole v. Yukins, 7 F. Appx. 354, 356 (6th Cir. 2001). Thus, such objections are “tantamount to a complete failure to object.” See id. Therefore, the Court OVERRULES Pilaintiff’s Objections (Doc. 70) and hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendation (Doc. 69) in its entirety. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the County Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 49).

1 The Court notes that Plaintiff's Objections were due on December 9, 2023. Plaintiff filed the Objections on December 11, 2023. Despite the Objections being filed out of time, the Court considers the merits of the Objections and finds them to be vague, general, and conclusory. See Cole, 7 F. Appx. at 346.

Plaintiffs claims against the County Defendants are DISMISSED for the reasons explained in the Report and Recommendation. This matter is TERMINATED from the Court's docket. IT IS SO ORDERED. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Mah WHifeld M4 By: JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND