Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Andwan v. Village of Greenhills

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

March 29, 2018

VILLAGE OF GREENHILLS, OHIO, et al., Defendants.

          Stephanie K. Bowman Magistrate Judge.


          Michael R. Barrett, Judge United States District Court.

         This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's August 21, 2017 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 219). On October 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Third Motion to Dismiss Summary Judgment (DOC. 199) & (DOC. 200) Motions & 1st Motion to Dismiss R&R (219) submitted in lieu of Plaintiff's Opposition to R&R (DOC. 219)…” (Doc. 235). Defendants filed a response (Doc. 240) and Plaintiff filed a reply (Doc. 241). Also pending are the following motions: 1) Plaintiff's Second Motion to Stay (Doc. 234); 2) Plaintiff's motions to supplement the record (Docs. 236, 238); 3) Plaintiff's Second Motion to Intervene (Doc. 239); 4) Plaintiff's Second Motion to Stay Order on Motion to Intervene (Doc. 239); and Defendants' Motion to Strike Reply to Response to Motion (Doc. 243). This matter is now ripe for disposition.

         I. BACKGROUND

         This matter has a long and involved procedural history, which has been well documented throughout these proceedings. Only the facts necessary to address Plaintiff's objections[1] and other pending motions will be restated herein. The crux of Plaintiff's argument is that the medical records in the record are incomplete, which unfairly affected the disposition of the R&R. She also argues her handwritten “notations” on various documents should have been considered.

         II. STANDARD

         When objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation are received on a dispositive matter, the assigned district judge “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). After review, the district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). General objections are insufficient to preserve any issues for review: “[a] general objection to the entirety of the Magistrate [Judge]'s report has the same effect as would a failure to object.” Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). Nevertheless, the objections of a petitioner appearing pro se will be construed liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).

         III. ANALYSIS

         To begin, the Court must address some preliminary matters. First, Defendants oppose Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement Medical Records (Doc. 235) and Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement Exhibit J (Doc. 238). Upon review, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motions. To the extent they are admissible, the Court will consider Plaintiff's supplemental exhibits.

         Also before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Reply. (Doc. 243). While the Court agrees with Defendants that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) does not provide for the filing of a reply, upon review, the Court finds the result does not change regardless of whether the Court considers Plaintiff's reply. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion (Doc. 243) is DENIED AS MOOT.

         Third, Plaintiff filed multiple motions to stay this matter. The first is essentially a motion for additional time file objections to the Magistrate Judge's R&R. (Doc. 234). Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. However, as explained more fully herein, the Court treats Plaintiff's Third Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 235) as objections to the Magistrate Judge's R&R (Doc. 219).

         In addition, Plaintiff requests a stay pending a ruling on Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief filed in state court. (Doc. 239). The Court takes judicial notice of the case history in Hamilton County Common Pleas Case No. A1705423: Patricia A. Andwan v. Village of Greenhills, OH. On November 30, 2017, Judge Steven E. Martin denied Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and for Emergency Hearing was denied on December 4, 2017. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion (Doc. 239) is DENIED AS MOOT.

         Finally, still pending is Plaintiff's Pro Se Objection to Magistrate Bowman's Order Regarding Motions for Summary Judgment and Stopgap Response Draft (Doc. 213). Plaintiff is not entitled to instructions from the Court with respect to summary judgment responses. Indeed, as this Court has explained to Plaintiff on numerous occasions, courts are not permitted to give litigants legal advice. See In re Nicole Energy Servs., Inc., 423 B.R. 840, 847 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio Feb. 25, 2010). Because Defendants' motions for summary judgment have been properly ruled on, Plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED.

         1. Me ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.