UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Jerone McDougald,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:18-cv-00080

v. Judge Michael R. Barrett

Jeremy Eaches, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s October 15, 2019 Report 

and Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. 53). Proper notice has been given to the parties, 

including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections 

to the R&R in a timely manner. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 

1981). Plaintiff filed timely objections. (Doc. 56). Defendants filed a Response in 

Opposition to Plaintiff’s objections. (Doc. 59). The Magistrate Judge provided a 

comprehensive review of the record in the R&R and the same will not be repeated here.

With respect to dispositive matters, and when the Court receives timely objections 

to an R&R, the assigned “district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate 

judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). “The 

district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further 

evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id.

The Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment be granted, Plaintiff’s pending motions be denied, and this case be dismissed 

with prejudice and closed. (Doc. 53). After a liberal review of Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 
2

56), the Court finds the objections to be general disagreements with the R&R, which are 

insufficient to direct the Court’s attention to a specific issue with the recommended grant 

of summary judgment in Defendants’ favor. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 

(2007) (holding that the objections of a petitioner appearing pro se will be construed 

liberally); Aldrich v. Bock, 32 F.Supp. 2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (“An ‘objection’ that 

does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate [judge]'s suggested 

resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an ‘objection’ 

as that term is used in this context.”). Plaintiff contends that the Magistrate Judge failed 

to properly evaluate the evidence and exhibits that he submitted with respect to each of 

his claims and argues that he clearly submitted evidence that creates a genuine issue of 

material fact regarding each of those claims. (Doc. 56). However, the Magistrate Judge 

explained why Plaintiff’s proffered evidence is insufficient to overcome Defendants’ wellsupported Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff’s reiteration of his arguments and 

conclusory statements that the R&R is clearly incorrect does not convince the Court that 

the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation is, in fact, incorrect. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that the Magistrate Judge’s 

October 15, 2019 R&R (Doc. 53) is ADOPTED. Consistent with those recommendations, 

it is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 36) is GRANTED, 

Plaintiff’s remaining Motions (Docs. 38, 40, 52) are DENIED, this case is DISMISSED

with prejudice, and closed and terminated from the Court’s active docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_s/ Michael R. Barrett___________

Michael R. Barrett, Judge

United States District Court