Durham v. Jeffreys, 1:13-cv-226. (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20190830c97
Visitors: 9
Filed: Aug. 29, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 29, 2019
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TIMOTHY S. BLACK , District Judge . This civil case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the relevant pleadings and, on August 8, 2019, submitted a Report and Recommendation, recommending that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted in its entirety and the case terminated on the Court's docket. (Doc.
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TIMOTHY S. BLACK , District Judge . This civil case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the relevant pleadings and, on August 8, 2019, submitted a Report and Recommendation, recommending that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted in its entirety and the case terminated on the Court's docket. (Doc. ..
More
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TIMOTHY S. BLACK, District Judge.
This civil case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the relevant pleadings and, on August 8, 2019, submitted a Report and Recommendation, recommending that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted in its entirety and the case terminated on the Court's docket. (Doc. 197). Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on August 28, 2019. (Doc. 199), which this Court has accepted as timely (Not. Orders, Aug. 29, 2019).1
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court determines that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 197) should be, and is hereby, adopted in its entirety. Accordingly:
1. Plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 199) are OVERRULED;
2. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 197) is ADOPTED;
3. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 178) is GRANTED;
4. All of Plaintiff's pending motions (Docs. 187, 190, 191, 193, 194, 195, 200) shall be terminated as MOOT;
5. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is TERMINATED on the docket of this Court; and
6. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the Court certifies that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, this Court DENIES Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. "The filing of objections provides the district court with the opportunity to consider the specific contentions of the parties and to correct any errors immediately." United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 950 (6th Cir. 1981) (emphasis added). "A party's objections are not sufficiently specific if they merely restate the claims made in the initial petition, `disput[e] the correctness' of a report and recommendation without specifying the findings purportedly in error, or simply `object[ ] to the report and recommendation and refer[ ] to several of the issues in the case.'" Bradley v. United States, No. 18-1444, 2018 WL 5084806, at *3 (6th Cir. Sept. 17, 2018) (quoting Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995)). In other words, "[t]he filing of vague, general, or conclusory objections does not meet the requirement of specific objections and is tantamount to a complete failure to object." Cole v. Yukins, 7 F. App'x 354, 356 (6th Cir. 2001). Here, Plaintiff's objections amount to general disagreement with the conclusion of the Report and Recommendation, arguing that the Magistrate Judge abused her discretion. Such objections do not amount to "specific written objections" to the Report and Recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (emphasis added). Moreover, upon de novo review, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's recommendations are thorough and accurate, and, accordingly, Plaintiff's objections are overruled.
Source: Leagle
