UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

GARY L. MCCOY,

Plaintiff, Case No. 3:17-cv-432

vs.

DR. RODNEY L. CARLSON, et al., District Judge Thomas M. Rose

Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER AND ENTRY GRANTING PLAINTIFF GARY MCCOY’S MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. 74)

***

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 THAT DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS 

THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOCS. 61, 65, 67) BE DENIED AS MOOT

______________________________________________________________________________

This civil case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a third amended 

complaint. Doc. 74. Defendants did not file a memorandum in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion 

for leave, and the time for doing so has expired. Accordingly, for good cause shown and absent 

opposition -- and noting that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), “[t]he [C]ourt should freely give 

leave when justice so requires” -- Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint 

(doc. 74) is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to separately file the third amended complaint 

within 7 days from the entry of this Order.

Also before the Court are three motions to dismiss filed by Defendants. Docs. 61, 65, 67. 

Because Defendants’ motions to dismiss are directed to Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, the 

undersigned RECOMMENDS that they be DENIED AS MOOT AND WITHOUT

1 Attached hereto is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and 

Recommendation. 
PREJUDICE TO REFILE. See Laning v. Doyle, No. 3:14–cv–24, 2014 WL 2805240, at *1–2 

(S.D. Ohio June 20, 2014).

Date: April 30, 2019 s/ Michael J. Newman

Michael J. Newman

United States Magistrate Judge

2
NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to 

the proposed findings and recommendations within FOURTEEN days after being served with this 

Report and Recommendation. This period is not extended by virtue of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) if served 

on you by electronic means, such as via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system. If, however, this Report 

and Recommendation was served upon you by mail, this deadline is extended to SEVENTEEN DAYS

by application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). Parties may seek an extension of the deadline to file objections 

by filing a motion for extension, which the Court may grant upon a showing of good cause. 

Any objections filed shall specify the portions of the Report and Recommendation objected to, 

and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report and 

Recommendation is based, in whole or in part, upon matters occurring of record at an oral hearing, the 

objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all 

parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge 

otherwise directs. 

A party may respond to another party’s objections within FOURTEEN days after being served 

with a copy thereof. As noted above, this period is not extended by virtue of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) if 

served on you by electronic means, such as via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system. If, however, this 

Report and Recommendation was served upon you by mail, this deadline is extended to SEVENTEEN 

DAYS by application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). 

Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 

1981).

3