Graham v. C/O E. Felty et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
DiSean Graham,
Plaintiff,
v.
C/O E. Felty, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 1:25-cv-464
Judge Susan J. Dlott
Order Adopting Report and
Recommendation, Dismissing Complaint,
and Denying Injunctive Relief
Plaintiff DiSean Graham, an inmate housed at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
(“SOCF”), has filed a Complaint asserting constitutional claims against prison officials and two
Motions for Injunctive Relief. (Docs. 1, 7–8.) Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz. issued a
Report and Recommendation on December 30, 2025 recommending (1) that Plaintiff’s
Complaint be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1);
(2) that his Motions for Injunctive Relief be denied as moot; and (3) that Cour certify under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal of an order adopting the Report and Recommendation would
not be taken in good faith. (Doc. 9.) The Magistrate Judge extended the deadline to file
objections to the Report and Recommendation to February 25, 2026. (Doc. 11.) Graham did not
file objections.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(1) authorize
magistrate judges to make recommendations concerning dispositive motions that have been
referred to them. When no objections are filed, “[t]here is no indication that Congress, in
enacting § 636(b)(1)(C), intended to require a district judge to review [the] magistrate’s report.”
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985); see also Weir v. Centurion, No. 3:19-CV-00131, 2021
WL 5165930, at *1 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 5, 2021) (“The district court is not required to review,
Case: 1:25-cv-00464-SJD-KLL Doc #: 12 Filed: 03/16/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
under a de novo or any other standard, those aspects of the report and recommendation to which
no objection is made.”). Still, some district courts follow the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule
72(b) and review the report and recommendation for clear error. 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);
Lassiter v. Dullaghan, No. 1:10-CV-010, 2011 WL 110259, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 13, 2011).
“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) (substantively similar).
The Court reviewed the parties’ filings on this matter and concludes that the Magistrate
Judge made no clear errors in the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 9) is ADOPTED, Graham’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE, and his Motions for Injunctive Relief (Docs. 7–8) are DENIED AS MOOT. The
Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in
good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:
S/Susan J. Dlott
Susan J. Dlott
United States District Judge
Case: 1:25-cv-00464-SJD-KLL Doc #: 12 Filed: 03/16/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>