UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

JASON M. RUSSELL,

Plaintiff,

 Civil Action 2:11-cv-1158

v. Judge George C. Smith

 Magistrate Judge Deavers

STATE OF OHIO, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Plaintiff, Jason M. Russell, a state inmate who is proceeding without the assistance of

counsel, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants,1

 seeking

declaratory and injunctive relief. This matter is before the Court for consideration of the March

14, 2012 Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 7) and

Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10).2 

1

Plaintiff names numerous Defendants in his Complaint, including fellow inmates and also

employees of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (“ODRC”), Lebanon

Correctional Institution (“LCI”), and Mansfield Correctional Institution (“MCI”), all of whom he

names in both their individual and official capacities. 

2

Plaintiff titles his filing as a “Motion for Declaratory Judgment and Amended Petition for

Preliminary/Temporary Injunctive Relief in Objection to Declare Void Magistrate’s Report and

Recommendation with Submission of ‘Further (Supplemental) Evidence in Support.’” (ECF No.

10.) Upon review of the substance of the filing, it appears that Plaintiff is objecting to the March

14, 2012 Report and Recommendation. For example, Plaintiff asserts that he is seeking

declaratory and injunctive relief against the Report and Recommendation. Id. at 2. He then

proceeds to challenge various portions of the Report and Recommendation. See Id. at 4, 6–9,

14–15. Plaintiff’s Motion is, therefore, appropriately characterized as his Objections to the

Report and Recommendation, and the Court treats the filing as such. 

Case: 2:11-cv-01158-GCS-EPD Doc #: 11 Filed: 04/04/12 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the Report and Recommendation under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 72(b). If 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).

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and Plaintiff’s Objections in

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b). Because the decision and analysis of the

Magistrate Judge is correct, the Court ADOPTS the March 14, 2012 Report and

Recommendation (ECF No. 7), OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 10),

DISMISSES this action in its entirety under §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A for failure to state claim

upon which relief can be granted, and DENIES Plaintiff’s motions for a temporary restraining

order and preliminary injunction. (ECF Nos. 3 and 4). Additionally, Plaintiff’s Motion

Requesting the Clerk to Certify Plaintiff’s Documents is MOOT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ George C. Smith 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

Case: 2:11-cv-01158-GCS-EPD Doc #: 11 Filed: 04/04/12 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>