Gallant v. Cadogan et al

Filing 75

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation re 52 Report and Recommendation denying 36 Motion; denying 37 Motion for Joinder;. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 3/31/18. (ba)(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
Jeremy P. Gallant,
:
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:16-cv-487
:

District Judge Barrett
Magistrate Judge Litkovitz

-vsAnthony Cadogan, et al.,
:
Defendants.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the magistrate judge’s August 29, 2017 report
(Doc. 52) recommending denial of: (1) Plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave to Proceed” and for
“Authorization and Acceptance of Filings” (Doc. 36); and (2) Plaintiff’s “Motion for
Joinder of Parties-Defendants” (Doc. 37). Read in conjunction, the motions seek leave
to amend Plaintiff’s complaint. On September 6, 2017, Plaintiff timely filed objections.
(Doc. 57). Despite an opportunity to do so, Defendants did not file a response. This
matter is now ripe for review.
By way of background, Plaintiff is an inmate the Southern Ohio Correctional
Facility (SOCF), and brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged
violations of his civil rights under the First and Eighth Amendments to the United States
Constitution. The magistrate judge summarized the procedural history of this case,
which will not be restated here, except as necessary to address Plaintiff’s objections. In
sum, Plaintiff asks this Court to perform a full de novo review of his motions. (Doc. 57;
PageID 436).

1

This Court shall consider objections to a magistrate judge's order on a nondispositive matter and “shall modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate judge's
order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). After
review, the district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision;
receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”
Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). General objections are insufficient to preserve
issues for review: “[a] general objection to the entirety of the [magistrate judge’s] report
has the same effects as would a failure to object.” Howard v. Sec’y of H.H.S., 932 F.2d
505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991).
In light of Plaintiff’s objections, asking that this Court perform a full de novo
review, the Court must emphasize that a district judge’s review of objections to a report
and recommendation should not be duplicative. Id. “Merely restating arguments
previously presented, stating a disagreement with a magistrate judge's suggested
resolution, or simply summarizing what has been presented before is not a specific
objection that alerts the district court to the alleged errors on the part of the magistrate
judge.” Renchen v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29910 at *3-4 (S.D.
Ohio Mar. 11, 2015) (citing Howard, 932 F.2d at 508-09).
Here, Plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report are too generalized.
In addition to seeking an “in depth independent review,” he vaguely argues that the
magistrate judge misapplied the rules of civil procedure and engaged in “inaccurate
speculations.” (Doc. 57; PageID 435,436). However, the Court is unable to ascertain
from his papers any objection that alerts the undersigned to the alleged, specific errors
on the part of the magistrate judge. And, having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report

2

on this non-dispositive matter, the Court finds no portion to be “clearly erroneous or
contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
Therefore, in accordance with the above, the Court ADOPTS the report (Doc. 52)
of the magistrate judge. Plaintiff’s Motions (Doc. 37; Doc. 39) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
s/ Michael R. Barrett
Hon. Michael R. Barrett
United States District Judge

3