United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
STEPHEN W. BYERLY, Plaintiff,
WARDEN, LEBANON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, et al. Defendants.
OPINION & ORDER
ALGENON L. MARBLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's
June 5, 2019, Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 59), which
recommended Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings (ECF No. 24) be GRANTED; Plaintiff's Motion for
Miscellaneous Relief (ECF No. 46) be GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part; and Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction
(ECF No. 27) and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave of Court to
Amend Motion for Injunction (ECF No. 29) be DENIED as moot.
Further, Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery (ECF No.
33), Plaintiff's Motion for an Order to Produce Discovery
(ECF No. 34), Plaintiff's Objection (ECF No. 51), and
Defendants' Motion to Strike Objection (ECF No. 54) are
DENIED as moot. This Court hereby ADOPTS the
Report and Recommendation in its entirety based on the
independent consideration of the analysis.
W. Byerly, an inmate at Lebanon Correctional Institution
(“the prison”), sued the Warden of the prison,
the State of Ohio, and other prison officials under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Byerly alleges that prison officials are
mistreating him during his incarceration by losing and
denying him access to legal materials associated with his
habeas petition and by not appropriately responding to his
grievances. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report &
Recommendation, after which Plaintiff filed a
“declaration” and the State of Ohio filed a
response to Plaintiff's declaration.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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); see also
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 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.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C). Here, because Defendant has filed objections to
the Report and Recommendation, the Court reviews the
recommended disposition de novo.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation Plaintiff does not object to any of the legal
determinations made by the Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 60).
Plaintiff instead contends Constitutional violations under
the Eighth, First, and Fourteenth Amendments. (ECF No. 60).
These alleged violations were not raised prior to
Plaintiff's objection to the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation. The purpose of an objection is
“to argue against the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the R&R based on the law and the
record.” McIntosh v. Hudson, 632 F.Supp.2d
725, 729, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59250, *9 (N.D. Ohio 2009);
see also United States v. Waters, 158 F.3d 933, 936
(6th Cir. 1998) (citing Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d
1421, 1426-27 (10th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised for the
first time in objections to magistrate judge's report and
recommendation are deemed waived.”)). As such, the
objections based on these alleged Constitutional violations
are improper. See Murr v. U.S., 200 F.3d 895, 902
n.1 (6th Cir. 2000).
Plaintiff appears to allege that the Magistrate Judge erred
in her determination regarding Plaintiff's access to an
effective grievance process. However, the Magistrate Judge
correctly noted that “the Sixth Circuit has held that
prisoners do not have a constitutionally protected liberty
interest in an inmate grievance procedure.”
Archibald v. Warren Cty. Reg'l Jail, No2018 WL
5270337, at *5 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 23, 2018) (collecting cases).
Plaintiff appears to conflate his access to the courts with
his access to a grievance process, through which he raises
his Eight Amendment claim. A grievance process and access to
the courts are distinct issues and the Court finds no error
in the Magistrate Judge's determinations on these issues.
Plaintiff provided no additional basis for his objection to
the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and
therefore Plaintiff failed to file a valid objection to the
Magistrate Judge's determination.
reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's Objections to the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation are
OVERRULED. This Court hereby
ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation. This case is hereby