White v. Dillow et al, No. 1:2019cv00033 - Document 53 (S.D. Ohio 2020)

Court Description: DECISION AND ENTRY adopting Report and Recommendations re 50 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 10/22/2020. (rrs)

Download PDF
White v. Dillow et al Doc. 53 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION JERMEAL WHITE Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL DILLOW, Defendant. : : : : : : : : : Case No. 1:19-cv-33 Judge Timothy S. Black Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 50) AND TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on August 20, 2020, submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 40). Plaintiff filed timely objections on September 1, 2020. (Doc. 51). Defendant Michael Willow filed a response to Plaintiff’s objections on September 15, 2020. (Doc. 52). After reviewing the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s objections, Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s objections, and the case record, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are not well-taken. Plaintiff’s objections do not identify errors of the Magistrate Judge, but instead restate arguments that he made in the opposition to motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 42). “Merely restating arguments previously presented, stating a disagreement with a magistrate judge's suggested resolution, or simply summarizing what has been presented before is not a Dockets.Justia.com specific objection that alerts the district court to the alleged errors on the part of the magistrate judge.” Martin v. E.W. Scripps Co., No. 1:12CV844, 2013 WL 5876172, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 30, 2013). Here, Plaintiff’s objections merely reargue that he did not fail to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Doc. 51 at 2–5). Yet the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge properly analyzed Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Court agrees with the Report and Recommendation’s conclusion that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because he did not undertake all of the steps of the grievance process before filing this claim as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. (Doc. 50 at 4–6). As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all of the filings in this matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does determine that Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 51) should be and are hereby OVERRULED and the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 50) should be and is hereby ADOPTED in its entirety. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above: 1) Defendant motion for summary judgment (Doc. 39) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 2) The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is TERMINATED from the docket of this Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 10/22/2020 s/Timothy S. Black Timothy S. Black United States District Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.