Jenkins v. Dahlby

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

ZABE JENKINS, ) CASE NO. 1:21-cv-1255 ) Plaintiff, ) JUDGE CHARLES ESQUE FLEMING ) vs. ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE ) JENNIFER DOWDELL ARMSTRONG KURT DAHLBY, et al., ) ) OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING Defendants. ) MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND ) RECOMMENDATION

On August 1, 2024, Plaintiff Zabe Jenkins, proceeding pro se, filed a Motion for Emergency Temporary Injunctions, which the Court construes as a motion for a temporary restraining order (the “Motion”). (ECF No. 22). Plaintiff is currently incarcerated and seeks an order from the Court that: (i) he not be transferred from the Franklin Medical Center (“FMC”) to the Mansfield Correctional Institution; and (ii) Defendants not withhold his property, including his legal property. (Id. at PageID #168). On August 15, 2024, Magistrate Judge Armstrong issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court deny the Motion. (ECF No. 24). Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) provides that the parties may object to a Magistrate Judge’s R&R within 14 days after service. The R&R also gave the parties notice of the 14-day time limit for filing objections. (Id. at PageID #189–90). The Court has given Petitioner 32 days to object to the R&R. As of the date of this Order, no objections have been filed. Under the Federal Magistrates Act, a district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of the R&R to which the parties have objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Absent objection, a district court may adopt a R&R without further review. See Peretz United States, 501 U.S. 923, 939 (1991); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 141-42 (1985). There being no objections, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Armstrong’s R&R, incorporates it fully herein by reference, and DENIES the Motion. IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘ad, Phravey Date: September 16, 2024 CHARLES E. FLEMING UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE