Taper v. Tabor et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
JOSHUA TAPER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JON TABOR, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 1:24-cv-159
Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation issued by
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on August 7, 2025. Doc. 36. The Magistrate Judge
recommends that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 23) be granted and that
Plaintiff’s Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 27, 30) be denied. Plaintiff has filed objections (Doc.
37).
I. LAW AND ANALYSIS
A district judge must review de novo any objections to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Importantly, however, review applies only to “any
portion to which a proper objection was made.” Richards v. Colvin, No. 2:12-cv-748, 2013 WL
5487045, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2013). This means that general or unspecific objections
are treated the same as a failure to object. Slater v. Potter, 28 F. App’x 512, 513 (6th Cir. 2002)
(“The filing of vague, general, or conclusory objections does not meet the requirement of
specific objections and is tantamount to a complete failure to object.”); see also Howard v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991).
Case: 1:24-cv-00159-JPH-KAJ Doc #: 38 Filed: 12/11/25 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
In this action, Plaintiff asks the Court to voluntarily dismiss his case without prejudice.
Under the circumstances, however, the Magistrate Judge concluded in the Report and
Recommendation that Plaintiff has not diligently pursued this action, and that, at this late
stage in the proceeding, a finding of voluntary dismissal without prejudice is inappropriate.
Doc. 36, PageID 660–61. Plaintiff does not appear to contest this conclusion in his objections.
Instead, he focuses on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Rather than address the
substance of the Magistrate Judge’s findings in the Report and Recommendation, however,
Plaintiff simply argues that he was unable to respond in a timely manner because his mail was
being sent to the incorrect facility. Doc. 37, PageID 668. He also contends that he has limited
access to the law library, which impaired his ability to litigate against Defendants’ summary
judgment motion. Id.
Construing Plaintiff’s objections in the broadest terms, the Court cannot discern specific
objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings in the Report and Recommendation. Thus,
Plaintiff has forfeited his ability for de novo review. Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir.
1995) (“The objections must be clear enough to enable the district court to discern those issues
that are dispositive and contentious.”). The Court acknowledges that Plaintiff did file a
response to Defendants’ summary judgment motion. See Doc. 35. However, the Magistrate
Judge found that Plaintiff failed to respond to ample evidence that Defendants provided
showing that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Thus, the Magistrate
Judge concluded that no genuine issue of fact remains on the issue of exhaustion. This Court
can find no reason to disturb the conclusions reached by the Magistrate Judge in the Report
and Recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (advisory committee notes from 1983
amendment) (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there
Case: 1:24-cv-00159-JPH-KAJ Doc #: 38 Filed: 12/11/25 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation”); see e.g.,
Roane v. Warden of Corr. Reception Ctr., No. 2:22-cv-2768, 2022 WL 16535903, at *1 (S.D. Ohio
Oct. 28, 2022). At the end of the day, the Magistrate Judge recommends that this case be
dismissed without prejudice. Ironically, that was Plaintiff’s ultimate goal in asking for a
voluntary dismissal of this action.
For these reasons, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 36) is ADOPTED in its
entirety. Plaintiff’s Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 27, 30) are DENIED, and Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment (Doc. 23) is GRANTED. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED
without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
December 11, 2025
Jeffery P. Hopkins
United States District Judge
Case: 1:24-cv-00159-JPH-KAJ Doc #: 38 Filed: 12/11/25 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>