McDougald V. Mahlman

Filing 113

ORDER: Plaintiffs motion to supplement his response (Doc. 106 ) is GRANTED; Plaintiffs motion for leave to supplement his Objection (Doc. 110 ) is GRANTED; The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 108 ) is ADOPTED; The Objections (Doc. 109 ) are OVER RULED; Defendants motion for summary judgment (Doc. 73 ) is GRANTED; Plaintiffs motion to proceed on judgment is DENIED AS MOOT; and the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is TERMINATED on the docket of this Court. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 9/21/2018. (ss)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
JERONE MCDOUGALD,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LINNEA MAHLMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 1:16-cv-317
Judge Timothy S. Black
Magistrate Judge Stephanie K.
Bowman

DECISION AND ENTRY
ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 108),
OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (Doc. 109), and
TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT
This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United
States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the
Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court, and, on August 15, 2018,
submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 108). Plaintiff filed objections
(“Objections”). (Doc. 109). 1 2

1

Plaintiff’s Objections contain conclusory arguments that Plaintiff’s claims should be allowed to
proceed to trial. The Objections do not explain “how the [Magistrate Judge’s] analysis is wrong,
why it was wrong and how de novo review will obtain a different result” on any particular issue.
See Martin v. E.W. Scripps Co., No. 1:12-cv-844, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155673, at * 5 (S.D.
Ohio Oct. 30, 2013). Nor do the Objections point to any affirmative evidence sufficient to create
an issue of fact for trial. Accordingly, the Objections are OVERRULED.
2

Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to supplement his Objection (Doc. 110).
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion and considers the filing at Doc. 110 as part of Plaintiff’s
Objection, which are all resolved here.

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 does
determine that such Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby ADOPTED it
its entirety.
Accordingly:
1.

Plaintiff’s motion to supplement his response (Doc. 106) is GRANTED;

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to supplement his Objection (Doc. 110) is
GRANTED;

3.

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 108) is ADOPTED;

4.

The Objections (Doc. 109) are OVERRULED;

5.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 73) is GRANTED;

6.

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed on judgment is DENIED AS MOOT; and

7.

The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is
TERMINATED on the docket of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date:

9/21/18

Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge

-2-