Brown v. Mohr et al

Filing 221

ORDER ADOPTING and AFFIRMING the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 217 in that Plaintiffs request for issuance of a preliminary injunction is hereby DENIED and Plaintiffs requests for appointment of counsel and issuance of a subpoena are DENIED. Signed by Judge George C. Smith on 1/19/18. (sem)(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
EASTERN DIVISION
STEVEN S. BROWN,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No.: 2:13-cv-006
JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH
Magistrate Judge Vascura

DIRECTOR MOHR, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
On December 8, 2017, the United States Magistrate Judge issued an Order and Report
and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s request for issuance of a preliminary
injunction be denied and his requests for appointment of counsel and issuance of a subpoena
were denied. (Doc. 217, Order and Report and Recommendation).
The parties were advised of their right to object to the Order and Report and
Recommendation. This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s Order and Report and Recommendation, as well as an additional Addendum.
(See Docs. 218 and 220). Defendants have filed a response to Plaintiff’s Objections. (Doc. 219).
Objections to a magistrate judge’s factual findings are reviewed under the “clearly erroneous”
standard, while objections to a magistrate judge’s legal conclusions are considered under the more
lenient “contrary to law” standard. Itskin v. Gibson, No. 2:10-CV-689, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
32169, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 9, 2012) (quoting Gandee v. Glaser, 785 F. Supp. 684, 686 (S.D. Ohio
1992)). Factual findings may be overturned under the “clearly erroneous” standard only when the
district court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. (citing In
re Search Warrants Issued August 29, 1994, 889 F. Supp. 296, 298 (S.D. Ohio 1995)). The district

court’s review of legal conclusions under the “contrary to law” standard is plenary, and the court
“may overturn any conclusions of law which contradict or ignore applicable precepts of law, as
found in the Constitution, statutes, or case precedent.” Id. (quoting Gandee, 785 F. Supp. at 686).

Plaintiff’s Objections merely present the same issues presented to and considered by the
Magistrate Judge in the Order and Report and Recommendation. Specifically, Plaintiff
continues to assert that he has serious medical conditions that are not being addressed and he is
being denied access. However, he has not actually raised an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s
conclusions. The Magistrate Judge carefully considered all of his arguments in ruling on the
pending motions and the Court agrees with the findings of the Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff also makes several allegations in his Addendum and also states that he would
like to file a motion for partial summary judgment but cannot due to his current circumstances.
Plaintiff is directed to the scheduling order which allows for motions for summary judgment to
be filed on or before December 4, 2018. (See Doc. 208).
Based on the aforementioned and the reasons stated in the Order and Report and
Recommendation, this Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. The Order and
Report and Recommendation was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Therefore, the
Order and Report and Recommendation, Document 217, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff’s request for issuance of a preliminary injunction is hereby DENIED and Plaintiff’s
requests for appointment of counsel and issuance of a subpoena are DENIED.
The Clerk shall remove Document 217 from the Court’s pending motions list.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ George C. Smith__________________
GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2