Bronson v. Straughn

Filing 46

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 45 Report and Recommendations. Accordingly 40 Motion to enforce settlement agreement filed by Daniel Bronson, and 36 Motion to Vacate and Reopen Case filed by Daniel Bronson are DENIED. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott. (wam)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Daniel Bronson,
Plaintiff,
v.
Deputy Montez Straughn,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 1:20-cv-334
Judge Susan J. Dlott
Order Adopting Report and
Recommendation and Denying PostJudgment Motions

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate
Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on December 7, 2024. (Doc. 45.) She has recommended that the
Court deny two post-judgment Motions (Docs. 36, 40) filed by Plaintiff Daniel Bronson. For the
reasons that follow, the Court will ADOPT the Report and Recommendation and DENY the
post-judgment Motions.
I.
Plaintiff Daniel Bronson filed a Complaint in May 2020 alleging that Defendant Montez
Straughn violated his civil rights by using excessive force against him in prison. (Doc. 3.) In
August 2021, the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal pursuant to a written settlement
agreement following a court mediation. (Doc. 137.) Then, more than two years later, Bronson
filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment and Reopen Case and a Motion to Enforce Settlement
Agreement asserting that Deputy Straughn had not complied with the settlement agreement.
(Docs. 36, 40.) Deputy Straughn opposed both Motions. He filed the written settlement
agreement and exhibits demonstrating that he had complied with the agreement by paying
Bronson the sum $6,000, which was deposited in Bronson’s prison account. (Docs. 37, 42.)

1

Based on the foregoing filings, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and
Recommendation recommending that the Court deny Bronson’s post-judgment Motions. (Doc.
45.) She concluded that Deputy Straughn had offered unrebutted proof that he had complied
with the terms of the settlement agreement. (Id. at PageID 181.) She also provided Bronson
with written notice of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation within
fourteen days. (Id. at PageID 182.)
II.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(1) authorize
magistrate judges to make recommendations concerning dispositive motions that have been
referred to them. When no objections are filed, “[t]here is no indication that Congress, in
enacting § 636(b)(1)(C), intended to require a district judge to review [the] magistrate’s report.”
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985); see also Weir v. Centurion, No. 3:19-CV-00131, 2021
WL 5165930, at *1 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 5, 2021) (“The district court is not required to review,
under a de novo or any other standard, those aspects of the report and recommendation to which
no objection is made.”). Nonetheless, some district courts follow the Advisory Committee Notes
to Rule 72(b) and review the report and recommendation for clear error. See e.g., Roane v.
Warden of Corr. Reception Ctr., No. 2:22-CV-2768, 2022 WL 16535903, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Oct.
28, 2022); Lassiter v. Dullaghan, No. 1:10-CV-010, 2011 WL 110259, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 13,
2011). “The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive
further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (substantively similar).
III.
Bronson did not file objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Court finds no

2

clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to deny the post-judgment
Motions. The undisputed evidence establishes that Straughn satisfied his obligations under the
settlement agreement. There is no cause to reopen the case.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 45) is ADOPTED and the Motion
to Vacate Judgment (Doc. 36) and Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement (Doc. 40) are
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:
S/Susan J. Dlott
Susan J. Dlott
United States District Judge

3