CALHOUN v. LYNCH et al

Filing 29

OPINION AND ORDER denying 28 Motion. Signed by Judge James L. Graham on 3/11/25. (ds)(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
RAPHAEL R. CALHOUN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:24-cv-3078
Judge James L. Graham
Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.

JULIE LYNCH, et al.,
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the objection of Plaintiff Raphael R. Calhoun,
proceeding pro se, to the Court’s November 5, 2024 Order (ECF No. 26) adopting the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 25). Because plaintiff has no procedural right to
object to the Order (as he did to the Report and Recommendation), the Court will construe his
filing as a motion for reconsideration. A party moving to reconsider must show: “(1) a clear error
of law; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling law; or (4) a need
to prevent manifest injustice.” Leisure Caviar, LLC v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 616 F.3d 612,
615 (6th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted).
Plaintiff has not satisfied this standard. His present objections mention filings made in state
court and that “the case is coming to a conclusion for me to pursue relief in the state courts.” (ECF
No. 28). Plaintiff also makes broad and unsupported claims that constitutional rights have been
violated. Ultimately, Plaintiff fails to present new information or show that an intervening change
in controlling law merits reconsideration. Plaintiff also does not show that a clear error of law is
present or that reconsideration is necessary to prevent manifest injustice.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED (ECF No. 28).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ James L. Graham
JAMES L. GRAHAM
United States District Judge
DATE: March 11, 2025