Summers v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge Gregory L. Frost on 4/23/15. (kn)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JAMES SUMMERS,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:15-cv-704
JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

v.
OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY,
Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s March 13,
2015 Order and Report and Recommendation (ECF No.9) and Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No.
10). Plaintiff, James Summers, is an Ohio inmate who filed an essentially unclear complaint in
which it appears that he is asserting that the Ohio Adult Parole Authority specifically and Ohio’s
system of incarceration generally apply arbitrary and unfair rules to the incarcerated, resulting in
his unlawful incarceration. The Magistrate Judge conducted an initial screen and recommended
that the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1914A.
(ECF No. 9, at Page ID # 45.) Plaintiff objects to this recommendation. Briefing on the
objection has closed, and the Order and Report and Recommendation and objections are ripe for
disposition.
When a party objects within the allotted time to a report and recommendation, the Court
“shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b). Upon review, the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

Plaintiff’s objections are as difficult to decipher as his complaint, if not more so. It
appears that in both of his objections, Plaintiff is simply repeating the core allegations of his
complaint, but with some greater detail. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that those prisoners
subject to flat-time sentences and those who are not often serve different periods of
incarceration. The Magistrate Judge correctly explained that this action cannot afford Plaintiff
the means to attack his sentence. The Magistrate Judge also correctly explained that Plaintiff has
failed to set forth facts that even suggest that he has been treated differently than other similarlysituated prisoners so as to present an equal protection claim. This Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 10),
ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Order and Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9), and
DISMISSES the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1914A. The Clerk shall
enter judgment accordingly and terminate this case on the docket records of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Gregory L. Frost
GREGORY L. FROST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2