Rice v. Jones et al

Filing 27

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 20 ): The Court finds that Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. 22 ) are not well-taken and are accordingly OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20 ) in its entirety and DENI ES Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (Doc. 11 ). IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Matthew W. McFarland on 11/13/2023. (kaf)(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 - CINCINNATI

NATHANIEL DANTE RICE,
Plaintiff,

Case No. l:22-cv-695
Judge Matthew W. McFarland

V.

SHERIFF RICHARD K. JONES, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 20)

This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (the
"Report") of United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz (Doc. 20), to whom this
case is referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). In the Report, Magistrate Judge Litkovitz
recommends that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (Doc. 11) be denied. (See Report, Doc. 20.)
Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report (See Objections, Doc. 22), and Defendants
responded in opposition to Plaintiff's objections (See Response, Doc. 25). Thus, the matter
is ripe for the Court's review.
Magistrate Judge Litkovitz recommends that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend be
denied because this Court lacks jurisdiction to press criminal charges and the amended
complaint seeks to reinstate claims that have already been dismissed. (Report, Doc. 20,
Pg. ID 338-39.) Plaintiff's objections, however, fail to adequately confront the Report's
reasoning or conclusions. Plaintiff fails to identify anything specific he believes to be
incorrect in the Report. See Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995). At most,

Plaintiff solely makes the conclusory statement that his "motion to amend presents
additional facts to support [his] claims against various staff members at Butler County
Jail." (Objections, Doc. 22, Pg. ID 346.) Such nonspecific and conclusory objections are
"tantamount to a complete failure to object." Bradley v. United States, No. 18-1444, 2018
WL 5084806, at *3 (6th Cir. Sept. 17, 2018) (quoting Cole v. Yukins, 7 F. App'x 354,356 (6th
Cir. 2001)).
Thus, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b),
the Court has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon review, the Court
finds that Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. 22) are not well-taken and are accordingly
OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20) in its

entirety and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (Doc. 11).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
By: ~

7N, Ht

J,-Od)

JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND

2