IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

ROBERT L. HILL, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. Case No.: 2:18-cv-944 

 JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH 

 Magistrate Judge King 

JARED MCGILTON, et al., 

 Defendants. 

 ORDER 

On October 11, 2018, the United States Magistrate Judge issued an Order and Report and 

Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

be granted and Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2)(B) and 

1915A. (Doc. 3). The parties were advised of their right to object to the Order and Report and 

Recommendation. This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objections to the Order and 

Report and Recommendation. (See Doc. 6). The Court will consider the matter de novo. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). However, “verbatim regurgitation of the arguments 

made in earlier filings are not true objections.” Bushner v. Larose, No. 5:14CV00385, 2017 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 49451, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 31, 2017). When an “objection” merely states 

disagreement with the magistrate judge’s suggested resolution, it is not an objection for the 

purposes of this review. Cvijetinovic v. Eberlin, 617 F. Supp. 2d 620, 632 (N.D. Ohio 2008), 

rev’d on other grounds, 617 F.3d 833 (6th Cir. 2010). The Sixth Circuit has stated that “[o]verly 

general objections do not satisfy the objection requirement.” Spencer v. Bouchard, 449 F.3d 

721, 725 (6th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 127 S. Ct. 
2 

910, 166 L. Ed. 2d 798 (2007) (citations omitted). Only specific objections are entitled to de 

novo review; vague and conclusory objections amount to a complete failure to object as they are 

not sufficient to pinpoint those portions of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 

that are legitimately in contention. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986). “The 

objections must be clear enough to enable the district court to discern those issues that are 

dispositive and contentious.” Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995) (citation 

omitted). “’[O]bjections disput[ing] the correctness of the magistrate’s recommendation but 

fail[ing] to specify the findings . . . believed [to be] in error’ are too general.” Spencer, 449 F.3d 

at 725 (quoting Miller, 50 F.3d at 380). 

 In his objections, Plaintiff presents the same arguments previously presented to and 

considered by the Magistrate Judge in the Order and Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff 

objects to the Magistrate Judge’s findings on the issues of due process at the RIB hearing, the 

disciplinary action resulting from the RIB hearing, and meaningful appeal. However, the 

Magistrate Judge’s conclusions are 

 The Court has carefully considered Plaintiff’s objections, however, the Court finds that 

the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions, with respect to Plaintiff’s arguments, are correct. Therefore, 

for the reasons stated above and as set forth in detail in the Order and Report and 

Recommendation, this Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are without merit and are hereby 

OVERRULED. 

The Order and Report and Recommendation, Document 3, is ADOPTED and 

AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. 
3 

The Clerk shall remove Documents 3 and 6 from the Court’s pending motions list. The 

Clerk shall terminate this case. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/ George C. Smith__________________ 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT