Alford v. Mohr

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI BRIAN K. ALFORD, ; No. 15-cv-645 Plaintiff, Judge Matthew W. McFarland vs. GARY MOHR, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 162)

This action is before the Court upon the Order and Report and Recommendations (the “Report”) (Doc. 162) of United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz, to whom this case is referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). In the Report, Magistrate Judge Litkovitz recommends that Plaintiff's “Motion for Releief (sic) of Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b) (4) (6)” (Doc. 161) be denied. Plaintiff submitted timely objections (Doc. 163) Thus, the matter is ripe for the Court’s review. The Court finds that Plaintiff's objections consist of reiterations of the arguments set forth in his motion, which were thoroughly and properly addressed and rejected by the Magistrate Judge. These general objections are not sufficient to preserve any issues for review, as rehashing the same arguments made previously defeats the purpose and efficiency of the Federal Magistrate’s Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636. Gilmore v. Russian, No. 2:16-cv- 1133, 2017 WL 2633524, at *1 (S.D. Ohio June 19, 2017) (citing Howard v. Sec’y of Health &

Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991) (“A general objection to the entirety of the magistrate’s report has the same effect as would a failure to objection.”). Plaintiff failed to establish that the Entry and Order Overruling Objections and Adopting Report and Recommendations (Doc. 153), in which this Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant Rick Malott, is void. Plaintiff objections make

no jurisdictional or substantive arguments for why this Court should grant relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). See Antoine v. Atlas Turner, Inc., 66 F.3d 105 (6th Cir. 1995). Additionally, Plaintiff fails to cite to “exceptional or extraordinary circumstances” which would warrant relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Hopper v. Euclid Manor Nursing Home, 867 F.2d 291, 294 (6th Cir. 1989). 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 Objections are not well-taken and are accordingly OVERRULED. Thus, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Litkovitiz’s Order and Report and Recommendations (Doc. 162) in its entirety. Plaintiff's “Motion for Relief (sic) of Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b) (4) (6)” is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF rll □ By: “Meth, W. + MATTHEW W. McFARLAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE