UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

JERONE MCDOUGALD,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ROSEANNA CLAGG, et al., 

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 1:18-cv-93

Judge Timothy S. Black

DECISION AND ENTRY 

ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 7) 

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 April 16, 2018, 

submitted a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the complaint 

should be dismissed as to Defendant Mahlman (only). (Doc. 7). Plaintiff Jerone 

McDougald filed an untimely objection on May 4, 2018. (“Objection”) (Doc. 9).

The Objection is not well-taken. Initially, the Objection—which was required to 

be filed by April 30, 2018, but was not filed until four days later—is untimely and fails as 

a matter of law.1 See Jones v. Warden, Ross Corr. Inst., No. 2:11-cv-0871, 2013 WL 

6230365, at *2, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169658, at * 4 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 2, 2013) (“failure

 1 The Objection to the R&R before the Court (Doc. 7) also includes untimely objections to a 

Report and Recommendation submitted on April 16, 2018 in the case that is being consolidated 

with this civil action. (Case No. 18-cv-135, Doc. 7). That Report and Recommendation was 

adopted by Judge Barrett on May 15, 2018. (Case No. 18-cv-135, Doc. 10). Given that 

Plaintiff’s objections to that R&R are untimely and fail as a matter of law, and that Judge Barrett 

has already ordered the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Erdo and Cool, those 

objections are resolved and the Court does not address them here.
2

to file timely objections not only waives the right to de novo review of a Magistrate

[Judge]’s Report and Recommendation, but dispenses with the need for the district court 

to conduct any review”).

In any event, the Objection fails on the merits. After reviewing the R&R and the 

Objection, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Defendant 

Mahlman cannot be held liable for failing to conduct an investigation. (Doc. 7, at 3-4).

Cases cited in the Objection are not applicable here as Mahlman was not a supervisor 

who created a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occurred. (Doc. 9, 

at 2).

 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 such Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby ADOPTED in 

its entirety. 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above:

1) Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Mahlman are dismissed with prejudice 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1); and 

2) Case number 1:18-cv-135 is consolidated into case number 1:18-cv-93, and all 

pleadings shall now be filed in case number 1:18-cv-93.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 7/17/18 s/ Timothy S. Black

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge