Burfitt v. Mahlman et al
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 15 and 25 Report and Recommendation dismissing Plaintiff's claims. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 6/21/17. (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
LAWRENCE R. BURFITT
LINNEA MAHLMAN, et al.,
) Case No.: 1:16cv776
) Judge Michael R. Barrett
) Magistrate Judge Karen Litkovitz
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Order and Report and Recommendations (“First
R&R”) (Doc. 15) and Report and Recommendation (“Second R&R”) (Doc. 25) of the Magistrate
The Magistrate Judge set forth the facts of this case, and the same will not be repeated
here except to the extent necessary to respond to Plaintiff’s objections. Plaintiff filed an in forma
pauperis civil complaint on July 26, 2016. Following two requests to amend his complaint,
which were both granted, the Magistrate Judge entered the First R&R, recommending his
complaint, as amended, be dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and
1915(A)(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against any of the
named defendants. (Doc. 15).
In response to the First R&R, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the Sixth Circuit (Doc.
20). The Sixth Circuit dismissed the appeal, finding that any review of the Magistrate Judge’s
ruling lies with the district court judge. (Doc. 22). Subsequently, the Magistrate Judge issued the
Second R&R recommending his third motion for leave to amend be denied. (Doc. 25). The
Magistrate Judge explained that the new allegations against Defendant Oppi were not raised in his
initial complaint, his first or second amendments, or his response to the First R&R, and Plaintiff
had not provided any explanation for his failure to do so. (Id. at PageID 140). Accordingly, the
Magistrate Judge concluded Plaintiff should not be permitted to amend his complaint given his
undue delay in filing. (Id.). On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed his objections to the Second R&R.
When objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are received on a
dispositive matter, the assigned district judge “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate
judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). After review,
the district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; 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 any issues for review: “[a] general
objection to the entirety of the Magistrate [Judge]’s report has the same effect as would a failure
to object.” Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991).
Nevertheless, the objections of a petitioner appearing pro se will be construed liberally. See
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
Section V of Plaintiff’s objections states the following:
Thus pla[i]ntiff has presented ample evidence to draw a conclusion that puts the
state in a clear picture of guilt. However due to the aggrivation [sic] of this case
and pla[i]ntiff’s attempts to keep it moving to trial  pla[i]ntiff now resigns from
persueing [sic] this case further. This longer more elaborated motion was
prepared only to help the next person learn from my mistake and hope that it can
push the next person(s) pass[ed] dismissal. Plaintiff has discovered new evidence
in his pending case in w[h]ich he may be able to use against the state and its
officials. I therefore resign from this case and hope it helps the next person . . .
(Doc. 26, PageID 144). The Court construes this as Plaintiff’s intent to voluntarily dismiss his
claims against Defendants.
To the extent Plaintiff does not wish to withdraw his claims against Defendants, the
Court finds his objections are without merit. Although Plaintiff indicates he “has discovered
new evidence in his pending case,” his objections largely rehash the same arguments previously
raised. Plaintiff does not, however, object to any specific portion of the Second R&R. General
objections to the entirety of the Magistrate Judge’s report have the same effect as a failure to
object. Howard, 932 F.2d at 509. Thus, Plaintiff’s objections to the Second R&R are without
merit and are insufficient to direct the Court’s attention to any particular issues contained therein.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED.
Consistent with the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. 26) are OVERRULED and
the Magistrate Judge’s First R&R (Doc. 15) and Second R&R (Doc. 25) are ADOPTED in their
entirety. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED WITH
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Michael R. Barrett
Michael R. Barrett, Judge
United States District Court
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?