Plaintiff, Judge Matthew W. McFarland : HON. JUDGE THOMAS CRUSH, et al., Defendants.

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION (Doc. 6), ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 5) IN ITS ENTIRETY, DISMISSING COMPLAINT (Doc. 4), AND TERMINATING ACTION

This case is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5) entered by United States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Bowman recommends that the Court dismiss the Complaint (Doc. 4) on alternative grounds, depending on whether or not Plaintiff's claims implicate the validity of his convictions or sentences. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se in this action, filed Objections (Doc. 6) to the Report and Recommendation, making this matter ripe for review. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon said review, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Objection is not well-taken and is accordingly OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety

and rules as follows: iL. To the extent the success of Plaintiffs claims could implicate the validity of his convictions or sentences, they are DISMISSED as Heck-barred WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 2: To the extent Plaintiff's claims are not Heck-barred, they are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Be The Court CERTIFIES pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore Plaintiff is DENIED leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Plaintiff remains free to apply to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. 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). 4. This action is TERMINATED on the Court's docket. IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WH thew seep By: JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND