Alford v. Mohr et al

Filing 165

ORDER ADOPTING ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 162 ): 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 Pursu ant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b) (4) (6)" is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Matthew W. McFarland on 11/28/2022. (kaf) (This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Case: 1:15-cv-00645-MWM-KLL Doc #: 165 Filed: 11/28/22 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 2389

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 &

Case: 1:15-cv-00645-MWM-KLL Doc #: 165 Filed: 11/28/22 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 2390

Human Seros., 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.

S~~~T
r~Rr
Vi~y.~

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
D~STRICT OE O 0

By:

MATTHEWW. McFARLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2