United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER [RESOLVING ECF NO.
Y. PEARSON, JUDGE.
before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Safaa Al-Zerjawi's
Motion for Extension of Time to Perfect Service Upon Five
Named Defendants (ECF No. 88). United States Magistrate Judge
Kathleen B. Burke prepared a report in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and recommended that
Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Perfect
Service (ECF No. 88) be denied and that his claims against
those Defendants be dismissed without prejudice. ECF No. 92.
Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the report and
recommendation. ECF No. 95. The Court has reviewed the above
filings, the relevant portions of the record, and the
governing law. For the reasons provided below, the Court
overrules Plaintiff's objection and adopts the report and
recommendation of the magistrate judge.
Factual and Procedural Background
was an inmate at Trumbull Correctional Institution
(“TCI”), at the time he filed this civil rights
action against Defendants, the “Medical Staff” at
the Corrections Reception Center in Orient, Ohio; James
Kline, a Medical Doctor at TCI; and the Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction. He seeks monetary damages and
other relief for violations under 42 U.S.C. §
1983.,  ECF No. 1. After receiving several
extensions of time within which to do so, Plaintiff timely
filed an Amended Complaint in which he alleges the same
claims as in his original complaint and names eight new
individual Defendants: Eddy, Saul, Cullen, Rhigi, Phillians,
Bankes, Winfield, and Damcheu. ECF No. 55.
alleges that, in 2014, while he was detained in Corrections
Reception Center in Columbus (“CRC”), he was
attacked by another inmate, who hit him in the face with a
rock, fracturing bones in his face and skull. ECF No. 55 at
PageID#: 352. He alleges nurses and medical staff at CRC
“ignored [his] pleas for help and care” following
this attack and failed to provide him medical attention for
several days. Id. at PageID#: 352-53. When he was
eventually seen by a doctor, a facial fracture was confirmed.
Id. at PageID#: 353-54. After a two-month delay,
Plaintiff was seen by a specialist, who told him he should
have seen him immediately and that his injury required
surgical intervention. Id. at PageID#: 354.
Plaintiff contends that his facial fractures “have
never been treated properly, ” and that Dr. Kline, the
medical doctor at TCI where he was incarcerated at the time
he filed this action, “refuse[d] to allow” him
the surgery he requires. Id. at PageID#: 355.
Plaintiff also complains he received inadequate care from
medical staff at TCI for an injury to his left eye he
sustained as a result of the attack. Id. at PageID#:
was returned and executed upon three of the newly named
Defendants in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (ECF Nos. 62
and 63), but unexecuted upon five named Defendants, that
include Rhigi, Phillians, Bankes, Winfield, and Damcheu (ECF
Nos. 65 and 66) (collectively “Defendants”). On
July 26, 2017, the magistrate judge informed Plaintiff that
his failure to perfect service upon the above-named
Defendants “within thirty (30) days, ” that being
by August 28, 2017, would result in the dismissal without
prejudice of Plaintiff's action against those Defendants,
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). ECF No. 85. Plaintiff alleges
that he timely submitted a Motion for Extension of Time to
Perfect Service Upon Five Named Defendants (ECF No. 88) to
the Court on August 17, 2017. ECF No. 91 at PageID#: 1034.
Plaintiff further alleges that the Mansfield Correctional
Institution prison mailroom failed to timely deliver his
legal envelope addressed to the Court because it lacked
sufficient postage. Id. His motion was untimely
filed on September 5, 2017-after the magistrate judge's
cutoff date. Id. Of significance, Plaintiff failed
to serve the remaining Defendants by the cutoff.
magistrate judge recommended that Plaintiff's motion for
more time to serve Defendants Rhigi, Phillians, Bankes,
Winfield, and Damcheu (ECF No. 88) be denied and that his
claims against those Defendants be dismissed without
prejudice. ECF No. 92.
timely objection followed. ECF No. 95. Plaintiff continues to
seek an extension of time to perfect service on three of the
five named Defendants: Rhigi, Phillians, and Winfield.
Id. at PageID#: 1126.
Standard of Review for a Magistrate Judge's Report and
objections have been made to a magistrate judge's Report
and Recommendation, the district court's standard of
review is de novo. Fed. R. Civ. 72(b)(3). A district
must determine de novo any part of the magistrate
judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.
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. Near verbatim regurgitation of the arguments
made in earlier filings are not true objections. 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).
Such “general objections” do not serve the
purposes of Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). See Jones v. Moore,
No. 3:04CV7584, 2006 WL 903199, at *7 (N.D. Ohio April
7, 2006). “A party who files objections to a magistrate
[judge]'s report in order to preserve the right to appeal
must be mindful of the purpose of such objections: to provide
the district court ‘with the opportunity to consider
the specific contentions of the parties and to correct any
errors immediately.'” Id. (citing U.S.
v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981)).
objects to the entirety of the magistrate judge's report
which recommends that Plaintiff's motion to perfect
service (ECF No. 88) be denied, and his claims against ...