UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

JERONE MCDOUGALD,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SHANNON BEAR, et al., 

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 1:18-cv-498

District Judge Timothy S. Black

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This civil case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to 

United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. Pursuant to such reference, the 

Magistrate Judge reviewed the relevant pleadings and circumstances of the case and, on 

June 26, 2019, submitted a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 10), recommending that 

Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint be DENIED and the case be dismissed, 

because Plaintiff has failed to pay the filing fee, pursuant to this Court’s prior Order 

(Doc. 9). Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on July 15, 2019

(Doc. 11), which this Court has accepted as timely (Not. Order, Aug. 29, 2019).

1

 

 

1

“The filing of objections provides the district court with the opportunity to consider the specific

contentions of the parties and to correct any errors immediately.” United States v. Walters, 638 

F.2d 947, 950 (6th Cir. 1981) (emphasis added). “A party’s objections are not sufficiently 

specific if they merely restate the claims made in the initial petition, ‘disput[e] the correctness’ of 

a report and recommendation without specifying the findings purportedly in error, or simply 

‘object[ ] to the report and recommendation and refer[ ] to several of the issues in the case.’” 

Bradley v. United States, No. 18-1444, 2018 WL 5084806, at *3 (6th Cir. Sept. 17, 

2018) (quoting Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995)). Here, Plaintiff’s objections 

fail entirely to address the issue of his failure to pay the filing fee and, thus, do not constitute 

“specific written objections” to the Report and Recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) 

(emphasis added). Moreover, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations are

thorough and accurate, and, accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections are overruled. 
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 determines 

that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 10) should be, and is hereby, adopted in its 

entirety. Accordingly:

1. Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 11) are 

OVERRULED; 

2. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 10) is ADOPTED; 

3. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint (Doc. 8) is hereby DENIED and 

the case is hereby DISMISSED;

4. Plaintiff remains liable for the full filing fee of $400.00, which shall be paid 

pursuant to the instructions provided in the Report and Recommendation. 

(Doc. 10);

5. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is 

TERMINATED on the docket of this Court; and

6. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the Court certifies that an appeal 

of this Order would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, this Court 

DENIES Petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 8/29/2019 s/ Timothy S. Black

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge