Goodykoontz v. State Of Ohio

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
DAVID GOODYKOONTZ, 	Case No. 1:24-cv-145
Plaintiff, 	Barrett, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
v.
STATE OF OHIO, 	ORDER AND REPORT AND
Defendant. 	RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the Court’s judgment
(Doc. 60), and defendant’s response in opposition (Doc. 63). Plaintiff also filed a motion to
“open discovery for his Rule 59 motion, summary judgment responses, and opposition to
magistrate[’]s ruling” (Doc. 62), to which defendant responded (Doc. 64).
As an initial matter, however, plaintiff includes in his motion to reconsider a specific
request that the Court “consider” his “objection to the recommendations of the magistrate.”
(Doc. 60 at PAGEID 430). Objections to that Report and Recommendation (Doc. 52) were due
14 days after it was served: November 17, 2025. Because plaintiff received service via regular
mail, the deadline was extended three days to November 20, 2025. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).
Plaintiff’s objections (Docs. 57, 58) were filed on December 1, 2025—the same date as the
District Judge’s Order adopting the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 55)—but were not
entered on the docket until December 2, 2025 (see docket notations). Plaintiff signed each
objection, however, on November 18, 2025. (Doc. 57 at PAGEID 408; Doc. 58 at PAGEID 417).
Plaintiff has now submitted what appears to be proof of prepaid postage for those objections
dated November 18, 2025 (Doc. 60 at PAGEID 438), and his declaration under 28 U.S.C. § 1746
Case: 1:24-cv-00145-MRB-KLL Doc #: 65 Filed: 02/03/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
stating he placed his objections in the mailbox on November 18, 2025 (id. at PAGEID 440).1 See
Scott v. Evans, 116 F. App’x 699, 701 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Richard v. Ray, 290 F.3d 810, 812
(6th Cir. 2002)) (applying the “mailbox rule”2 in pro se prisoner civil actions). The Court
therefore concludes that plaintiff timely filed objections to its prior Report and Recommendation,
which should be ruled on by the District Judge in the first instance. Given this would require the
District Judge to vacate his prior Order adopting Report and Recommendations (Doc. 55), the
Court recommends denying as moot the pending motion to reconsider that Order (Doc. 60).
Plaintiff’s motion to open discovery (Doc. 62), filed in conjunction with his motion to
reconsider, is DENIED as moot.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. 	Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider (Doc. 60) be DENIED as moot, and the District
Judge VACATE its prior Order (Doc. 55) in view of plaintiff’s timely objections to
the undersigned’s prior Report and Recommendation (Doc. 52).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff’s motion to open discovery (Doc. 62) is DENIED as moot.
Date: ____________ 	______________________________
Karen L. Litkovitz
United States Magistrate Judge
1 Plaintiff also states in his declaration that he placed them in the mailbox within 14 days of his actual receipt of the
Report and Recommendation. (Id.).
2 The Supreme Court described this rule in the context of a pro se prisoner’s notice of appeal, holding that it is
“deemed ‘filed’ on the date that it is deposited in the prison mail system to be forwarded to the court clerk.” Id.
(citing Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988)).
2/3/2026
Case: 1:24-cv-00145-MRB-KLL Doc #: 65 Filed: 02/03/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
DAVID GOODYKOONTZ, 	Case No. 1:24-cv-145
Plaintiff, 	Barrett, J.
Litkovitz, M.J.
v.
STATE OF OHIO,
Defendant.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of
the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on
timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected
to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report
and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral
hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such
portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the
assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections
WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in
accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Case: 1:24-cv-00145-MRB-KLL Doc #: 65 Filed: 02/03/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>