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.

______________________________________________________________________________

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 THAT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 

THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. 89) BE DENIED AS MOOT

______________________________________________________________________________

This civil case is before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s third 

amended complaint. Doc. 89. Following the filing of this motion, Plaintiff, with leave of Court 

having been granted (doc. 116), filed a fourth amended complaint (doc. 117). Accordingly, the 

undersigned RECOMMENDS that Defendants’ motion to dismiss the third amended complaint 

(doc. 89) be DENIED AS MOOT. See Laning v. Doyle, No. 3:14–cv–24, 2014 WL 2805240, at 

*1–2 (S.D. Ohio June 20, 2014). 

Notably, Defendants have now filed motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s fourth amended 

complaint (docs. 128, 139), which remain pending and will be addressed together when both 

motions are ripe for adjudication.

Date: November 13, 2019 s/ Michael J. Newman

Michael J. Newman

United States Magistrate Judge

 

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

Recommendation. 
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).