From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gudenas v. Cervenik

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Mar 16, 2010
CASE NO. 1:09CV2169 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 16, 2010)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:09CV2169.

March 16, 2010


ORDER


This Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation (Doc.#) of Magistrate Judge McHargh regarding Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc.# 7) and Plaintiff's Motion to Convert Defendants Motion to a Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc.# 13).

FED. R. CIV.P. 72(b) provides that objections to a Report and Recommendation must be filed within ten (10) days after service, but both Plaintiff and Defendants has failed to timely file any such objections. Therefore, the Court must assume that both are satisfied with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Any further review by this Court would be a duplicative and inefficient use of the Court's limited resources. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff'd, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991);United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

Therefore, the Court adopts in full the Report and Recommendation (Doc.# 16) and the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #7) is granted in part, and denied in part. The Motion to Dismiss is granted as to the right to privacy claim alleged under the First Amendment, and granted as to the failure to investigate claim alleged under the Fourteenth Amendment. The motion is denied on the Fourth Amendment claim, and denied as to qualified immunity in regard to that claim. The Motion to Convert (Doc. #13) is denied, because the Court does not rely on the exhibits and other materials beyond the pleadings to rule on the Motion to Dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Gudenas v. Cervenik

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Mar 16, 2010
CASE NO. 1:09CV2169 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 16, 2010)
Case details for

Gudenas v. Cervenik

Case Details

Full title:EDMUND GUDENAS Plaintiff, v. BILL CERVENIK, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Mar 16, 2010

Citations

CASE NO. 1:09CV2169 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 16, 2010)

Citing Cases

Krlich v. Taafe

Other judges on this Court have also dismissed § 1983 Equal Protection Clause claims that are predicated on a…