Brown v. Mohr et al

Filing 229

ORDER ADOPTING and AFFIRMING the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 224 in that Plaintiffs Emergency Motion 223 is hereby DENIED. For the same reasons as set forth in the Report and Recommendation and this Order, Plaintiffs Additional Motion in Support of Request for an Injunction and RestrainingOrder 225 is also DENIED. Signed by Judge George C. Smith on 6/15/18. (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 April 23, 2018, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that Plaintiff’s pro se Emergency Motion Addendum to Motion for Protection and
for a Preliminary Injunction be denied. (Doc. 224, Report and Recommendation).
The parties were advised of their right to object to the 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 Doc. 226). Defendants have filed a
response to Plaintiff’s Objections. (Doc. 227). The Court will consider the matter de novo. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
Plaintiff’s Objections merely present the same issues presented to and considered by the
Magistrate Judge in the 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 to the
Courts. However, he has not actually raised an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions.
“An ‘objection’ that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate’s suggested
resolution or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an ‘objection’ as that term
is used in this context.” Aldrich v. Bock, 327 F.Supp.2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004). A general

objection to the magistrate’s report has the same effect as a failure to object. Id. See also Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151 (1985) (“where a magistrate makes a finding or ruling on a motion or an
issue, his determination should become that of the district court, unless specific objection is filed
within a reasonable time”).
The Magistrate Judge carefully considered all of Plaintiff’s arguments in ruling on the
pending motions and the Court agrees with the findings of the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff’s current
arguments relate to his treatment at the Warren Correctional Institution, however, Plaintiff’s claims
in this case relate to his treatment while incarcerated at the Ross Correctional Institution. A district
court does not have the authority to issue injunctive relief on the basis of claimed injuries or actions
that are unrelated to the allegations in the movant’s complaint. See Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d 282,
299-300 (6th Cir. 2010).
Based on the aforementioned and the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, this
Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are without merit. Therefore, the Report and
Recommendation, Document 224, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion
is hereby DENIED. For the same reasons as set forth in the Report and Recommendation and the
Order above, Plaintiff’s Additional Motion in Support of Request for an Injunction and Restraining
Order (Doc. 225) is also DENIED.
The Clerk shall remove Documents 223, 224, 225, and 226 from the Court’s pending
motions list.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ George C. Smith__________________
GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2