Case Information
*1 Case: 3:24-cv-00114-MJN-PBS Doc #: 6 Filed: 07/18/25 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 98 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON PATRICK WILKERSON, SR.,
Plaintiff, Case No. 3:24-cv-114 vs.
MELANIE PHELPS-POWERS, et al ., District Judge Michael J. Newman
Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
Defendants. _______________________________________________________________________________________ ORDER: (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE (Doc. No. 2); (2) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S OFFICIAL CAPACITY CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS MELANIE PHELPS-POWERS AND LISA BRUDER; (3) DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS 7-10, 12, AND 13 (Doc. No. 1-1 at PageID 20-22, 24-25); AND (4) PERMITTING PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS 1-6, 11, AND 14 TO PROCEED (Doc. No. 1-1 at
PageID 14-20, 23, 25)
_______________________________________________________________________________________
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr. (Doc. No. 2), to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The parties have not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation and the time for doing so under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has expired. Upon careful review of the foregoing, and accepting as true Plaintiff Patrick Wilkerson, Sr.’s pro se allegations in his favor [1] , the Court determines that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted. Accordingly, the Court: (1) ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 2) in its entirety; (2) DISMISSES Plaintiff’s official capacity claims against Defendants Melanie Phelps-Powers and Lisa Bruder; (3) DISMISSES Claims 7-10, 12, and 13 (Doc. No. 1-1 at PageID 20-22, 24-25); and (4) PERMITS Claims 1-6, 11, and 14 to proceed (Doc. No. 1-1 at PageID 14-20, 23, 25).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 18, 2025 s/ Michael J. Newman Hon. Michael J. Newman United States District Judge
[1] As with all pro se litigants, Plaintiff’s documents and allegations are liberally construed in his favor. See Erickson v. Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) ( per curiam ).