Johnson v. ODRC

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI ANTONIO JOHNSON, : Case No. 1:23-cv-39 Plaintiff, Judge Matthew W. McFarland : Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz v. ODRC, et al., Defendants.

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS (Doc. 121)

This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) (Doc. 116) 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, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff's Motions for Default Judgment or Sanctions (Docs. 83, 91, 93, 98), Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 84), and Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 99), all be denied. Plaintiff filed Objections to the Report (Doc. 121), to which Defendants did not respond. Thus, this matter is ripe for the Court’s review. The Court finds that Plaintiff's objections do not present any new arguments that were not otherwise set forth in his various filings. These general objections are insufficient 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 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93843, at *1 (S.D. Ohio June 19, 2017) (citing Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Serovs., 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 fails to demonstrate any factual or legal error by Magistrate Judge Litkovitz in her Report. Plaintiff's objections to the existence of certain pieces of evidence amount to the same arguments raised in his previous filings. (See Objection, Doc. 121, Pg. ID 914-15.) “Objections to magistrate judges’ reports and recommendations are not meant to be vehicles for rehashing arguments that the magistrate judge has already considered. Rhodus v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:19-CV-217, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167730, at *1-2 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 14, 2020). Duplicative objections “fail to identify any specific errors” an unhappy litigant accuses thereport and recommendation of making. Id. The Court has made a de novo review of the record in this case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Upon such review, the Court finds that Plaintiff's objections point out no error in the Report and Recommendation and are accordingly OVERRULED. Thus, the Court ADOPTS the Report (Doc. 116) in its entirety. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following: 1. Plaintiff's Motions for Default Judgment or Sanctions (Docs. 83, 91, 93, 98) are DENIED; 2. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend his Complaint (Doc. 84) is DENIED; and 3. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 99) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ¢ By: JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND