Wilkins v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI TEVYN NEVADA LEE WILKINS, ‘ Case No. 1:22cv18 Plaintiff, ; Judge Matthew W. McFarland : Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz vs. : SOUTHERN OHIO : CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al, : Defendants. :

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 7) AND TERMINATING CASE

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz (Doc. 7), to whom this case is referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). No objections have been filed. The time for filing such objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has expired. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Accordingly, the Court orders

as follows: 1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4) in its entirety. 2. Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 3. This action is hereby TERMINATED on the Court's docket.

4. The Court CERTIFIES pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that, for the reasons expressed in the Report, an appeal of this Order adopting the Report would not be taken in good faith, and therefore DENIES plaintiffs leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 203 (2007). Plaintiffs remain free to apply to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803 (6th Cir. 1999). IT IS SO ORDERED. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WME By: JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND