Opinion
1:22-cv-695
11-13-2023
NATHANIEL DANTE RICE, Plaintiff, v. SHERIFF RICHARD K. JONES, et al.. Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 20)
MATTHEW W. MCFARLAND, JUDGE
This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (the "Report") of United States Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz (Doc. 20), to whom this case is referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). In the Report, Magistrate Judge Litkovitz recommends that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (Doc. 11) be denied. (See Report, Doc. 20.) Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report (See Objections, Doc. 22), and Defendants responded in opposition to Plaintiff's objections (See Response, Doc. 25). Thus, the matter is ripe for the Court's review.
Magistrate Judge Litkovitz recommends that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend be denied because this Court lacks jurisdiction to press criminal charges and the amended complaint seeks to reinstate claims that have already been dismissed. (Report, Doc. 20, Pg. ID 338-39.) Plaintiff's objections, however, fail to adequately confront the Report's reasoning or conclusions. Plaintiff fails to identify anything specific he believes to be incorrect in the Report. See Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995). At most. Plaintiff solely makes the conclusory statement that his "motion to amend presents additional facts to support [his] claims against various staff members at Butler County Jail," (Objections, Doc. 22, Pg. ID 346.) Such nonspecific and conclusory objections are "tantamount to a complete failure to object." Bradley v. United States, No. 18-1444, 2018 WL 5084806, at *3 (6th Cir. Sept. 17,2018) (quoting Cole v. Yukins, 7 Fed.Appx. 354,356 (6th Cir. 2001)).
Thus, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. 22) are not well-taken and are accordingly OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20) in its entirety and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (Doc. 11).
IT IS SO ORDERED.