Hairston v. Sparks et al

Filing 185

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 180 and denying plaintiff's motion for sanctions 154 .. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 3/7/2025. (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
Rico Isaih Hairston,
Plaintiff,
v.
Frelon Sparks, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 1:22-cv-104
Judge Susan J. Dlott
Order Adopting Report and
Recommendation and Denying Motion
for Sanctions

This matter is before the Court on the Order and Report and Recommendation entered by
Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr. on January 31, 2025. (Doc. 180.) The Magistrate Judge
recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions against Defendants and
Attorney Chadd McKitrick. (Docs. 154, 180.) Hairston filed an Objection to the Report and
Recommendation. (Doc. 182.)
Title 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1)(B) & (C) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 72(b)(1)
authorize magistrate judges to make recommendations concerning dispositive motions and
prisoner petitions challenging conditions of confinement. Parties then have fourteen days to
make file and serve specific written objections to the report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C.
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “The district judge must determine de novo any part of the
magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. 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)
(substantially similar).
The Court agrees with the well-reasoned Report and Recommendation. Neither the
1

evidence nor the arguments support Plaintiff’s request for sanctions. Plaintiff has not proved that
he complied with the safe harbor provision of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(2) before
filing the Motion for Sanctions. Further, he has not proved that Attorney McKitrick committed
perjury. Finally, Defendants complied with the Court’s instruction in making redactions for the
Protective Control Assessment. (Doc. 153-1 at PageID 1323–1328.) The Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 180) is ADOPTED, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 154) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:
S/Susan J. Dlott
Susan J. Dlott
United States District Judge

2