From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wade v. Hamilton Cty

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio
Nov 28, 2011
Case No. 1:11-cv-590 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 28, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 1:11-cv-590.

November 28, 2011.


ORDER


This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation filed November 7, 2011 (Doc. 7).

Proper notice has been given to the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the Report and Recommendation in a timely manner. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). As of the date of this Order, no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation have been filed.

Having reviewed this matter de novo pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, we find the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation correct.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. Plaintiff's/Petitioner's complaint/petition is dismissed with prejudice.

This Court certifies that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore DENIES plaintiff/petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 803 (6th Cir. 1999), overruling in part Floyd v. United States Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274, 277 (6th Cir. 1997).


Summaries of

Wade v. Hamilton Cty

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio
Nov 28, 2011
Case No. 1:11-cv-590 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 28, 2011)
Case details for

Wade v. Hamilton Cty

Case Details

Full title:WADE v. HAMILTON CTY

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

Date published: Nov 28, 2011

Citations

Case No. 1:11-cv-590 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 28, 2011)

Citing Cases

State of Ga. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.

By written contracts between the plaintiff and its several customers title to the syrup ordered passed to the…

Smith v. Francis

"The interest which will support a claim under our statute, is any interest which renders the property not…