From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hughes v. Lavender

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Jun 22, 2011
Case No. 2:10-cv-674 (S.D. Ohio Jun. 22, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 2:10-cv-674.

June 22, 2011


ORDER


On September 16, 2010, the defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the plaintiff did not properly exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. On October 25, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (doc. 19), recommending that the motion be denied because the failure to exhaust was not apparent from the face of the complaint. The defendants did not file objections to the Report and Recommendation. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. The defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings (doc. 15) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Hughes v. Lavender

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Jun 22, 2011
Case No. 2:10-cv-674 (S.D. Ohio Jun. 22, 2011)
Case details for

Hughes v. Lavender

Case Details

Full title:Mark A. Hughes, Plaintiff, v. George Lavender, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Jun 22, 2011

Citations

Case No. 2:10-cv-674 (S.D. Ohio Jun. 22, 2011)

Citing Cases

Solly v. Mausser

Courts should not appoint expert witnesses under Rule 706 in order to aid a litigating party." Hughes v.…

Martin v. L & M Botruc Rental, LLC

. Id. (citing Hughes v. Lavender, No. 10-674, 2011 WL 2550740, at *1 (S.D. Ohio June 23,…