United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Jonathan D. Greenberg Magistrate Judge
C. NUGENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation
of Magistrate Judge Jonathan D. Greenberg. (ECF #44). On June
15, 2018, Plaintiff, Stacey Long, filed a Complaint and
Request for Injunction. (ECF #1). Plaintiffs pending motions
consist of Plaintiffs Request for Preliminary Injunction (ECF
#8) and Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF #22). The five
Defendants also have three pending motions: Defendant Michael
Davis' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
(ECF #29), Defendants Brigham Sloan and J. King's Motion
to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Joinder in
Defendant Davis' Motion to Dismiss (ECF #31), and
Defendants E. Weizer and G. Stills' Joinder in Defendant
Davis' Motion to Dismiss (ECF #32).
23, 2019, Magistrate Judge Greenberg issued his Report and
Recommendation. (ECF #44). Magistrate Judge Greenberg
recommends that Plaintiffs Requests for Preliminary
Injunction (ECF #8, 22) be denied, Defendant Davis'
Motion to Dismiss (ECF #29) be granted, Defendants
Sloan's and King's Motion to Dismiss (ECF #31) be
granted, and Defendants Weizer's and Still's Motion
to Dismiss (ECF #32) be granted. Plaintiff filed a timely
Objection to the Report and Recommendation with a Memorandum
in Support. (ECF #47). Defendants King and Sloan filed a
Response to Plaintiffs Objection. (ECF #48).
Court finds Magistrate Judge Greenberg's Report and
Recommendation to be thorough, well-written, well-supported,
and correct. The Court therefore adopts the "Procedural
Background" and "Factual Allegations" included
therein. (ECF #44, p. 2-6).
of Review for a Magistrate Judge's Report and
applicable standard of review for a magistrate judge's
report and recommendation depends upon whether objections
were made to that report. When objections are made to a
report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, the district
court reviews the case de novo. FED. R. Civ. P.
The district judge 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 instruction.
Court reviewed Plaintiffs Objection to the Report and
Recommendation, discussed first here in order to determine
the part(s) of the Report and Recommendation that are subject
to a de novo review. In Mr. Long's Objection, he
reminds the Court of his Jewish faith, its sincerity, and its
practice of maintaining a kosher diet. He also reminds the
Court of his legal arguments for protection under RLUIPA, the
First Amendment, and Ohio's Food and Drug Law. (ECF #47).
Mr. Long filed an objection, his Objection lacks reasonable
specificity for why the Magistrate Judge should have reached
a different outcome. When a plaintiff files an objection to a
report and recommendation, the plaintiff must file
"specific objections." Murphy v. Reed, 22
Fed.Appx. 390, 391 (6th Cir. 2001). Therefore, if a plaintiff
only files "vague, general, or conclusory
objections," then the Court may review the Report and
Recommendation as if the plaintiff entirely failed to object.
Cole v. Yunkins, 7 FedAppx. 354, 356 (6th Cir.
Court finds Mr. Long's Objection is conclusory and serves
as a re-iteration of prior arguments and facts. Therefore,
Plaintiffs Objection is not a cause for a de novo
review of any part of the case, but the Court nevertheless
thoroughly examines the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation in light of Plaintiff s dissatisfaction.
Magistrate Judge correctly recommends that the Court: (1)
decline to consider new exhibits attached to Plaintiffs
briefs because the exhibits are neither referenced in the
Complaint nor demonstrated as central to Plaintiffs claim;
(2) dismiss the RLUIPA claim because Plaintiff failed to
allege his Jewish faith or his diet's connection to
practicing Judaism in his Amended Complaint; (3) dismiss the
First Amendment claim because Plaintiff did not clearly show
any defendants' personal involvement in unconstitutional
behavior, as well as failing to allege that kosher meals are
essential to an alleged "sincerely held religious
belief;" (4) dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim because
Plaintiff did not show a specific incident of a named
supervisor's misconduct; (5) deny the Fourteenth
Amendment claim because Plaintiff failed to allege a liberty
or property interest protected by the Due Process clause; (6)
dismiss the 28 C.F.R. § 541.12 because the code is not
enforceable; (7) dismiss the Ohio Pure Food and Drug Law
claim because the claim is not included in Plaintiffs Amended
Complaint; and (8) deny ...