United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
Stephanie K. Bowman Magistrate Judge.
Michael R. Barrett, Judge United States District Court.
matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's
August 21, 2017 Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) (Doc. 219). On October 15, 2017,
Plaintiff filed a document titled “Third Motion to
Dismiss Summary Judgment (DOC. 199) & (DOC. 200) Motions
& 1st Motion to Dismiss R&R (219) submitted in lieu
of Plaintiff's Opposition to R&R (DOC.
219)…” (Doc. 235). Defendants filed a response
(Doc. 240) and Plaintiff filed a reply (Doc. 241). Also
pending are the following motions: 1) Plaintiff's Second
Motion to Stay (Doc. 234); 2) Plaintiff's motions to
supplement the record (Docs. 236, 238); 3) Plaintiff's
Second Motion to Intervene (Doc. 239); 4) Plaintiff's
Second Motion to Stay Order on Motion to Intervene (Doc.
239); and Defendants' Motion to Strike Reply to Response
to Motion (Doc. 243). This matter is now ripe for
matter has a long and involved procedural history, which has
been well documented throughout these proceedings. Only the
facts necessary to address Plaintiff's
objections and other pending motions will be restated
herein. The crux of Plaintiff's argument is that the
medical records in the record are incomplete, which unfairly
affected the disposition of the R&R. She also argues her
handwritten “notations” on various documents
should have been considered.
objections to a magistrate judge's report and
recommendation are received on a dispositive matter, the
assigned district judge “must determine de
novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition
that has been properly objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(3). After review, 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.; see
also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). General objections are
insufficient to preserve any issues for review: “[a]
general objection to the entirety of the Magistrate
[Judge]'s report has the same effect as would a failure
to object.” Howard v. Sec'y of Health &
Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991).
Nevertheless, the objections of a petitioner appearing
pro se will be construed liberally. See Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
begin, the Court must address some preliminary matters.
First, Defendants oppose Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement
Medical Records (Doc. 235) and Plaintiff's Motion to
Supplement Exhibit J (Doc. 238). Upon review, the Court
GRANTS Plaintiff's Motions. To the
extent they are admissible, the Court will consider
Plaintiff's supplemental exhibits.
before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Strike
Plaintiff's Reply. (Doc. 243). While the Court agrees
with Defendants that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2)
does not provide for the filing of a reply, upon review, the
Court finds the result does not change regardless of whether
the Court considers Plaintiff's reply. Accordingly,
Defendants' Motion (Doc. 243) is DENIED AS
Plaintiff filed multiple motions to stay this matter. The
first is essentially a motion for additional time file
objections to the Magistrate Judge's R&R. (Doc. 234).
Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. However,
as explained more fully herein, the Court treats
Plaintiff's Third Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 235) as
objections to the Magistrate Judge's R&R (Doc. 219).
addition, Plaintiff requests a stay pending a ruling on
Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief filed in state
court. (Doc. 239). The Court takes judicial notice of the
case history in Hamilton County Common Pleas Case No.
A1705423: Patricia A. Andwan v. Village of Greenhills, OH. On
November 30, 2017, Judge Steven E. Martin denied
Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and
granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's
Motion for Reconsideration and for Emergency Hearing was
denied on December 4, 2017. Accordingly, Plaintiff's
motion (Doc. 239) is DENIED AS MOOT.
still pending is Plaintiff's Pro Se Objection to
Magistrate Bowman's Order Regarding Motions for Summary
Judgment and Stopgap Response Draft (Doc. 213). Plaintiff is
not entitled to instructions from the Court with respect to
summary judgment responses. Indeed, as this Court has
explained to Plaintiff on numerous occasions, courts are not
permitted to give litigants legal advice. See In re
Nicole Energy Servs., Inc., 423 B.R. 840, 847 (Bankr.
S.D. Ohio Feb. 25, 2010). Because Defendants' motions for
summary judgment have been properly ruled on, Plaintiff's
objections are OVERRULED.