Ellis v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JAMES P. ELLIS, 	:
:
Plaintiff, 	: 	Case No.: 2:25-cv-642
:
v. 	: 	Judge Algenon L. Marbley
:
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF 	: 	Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura
REHABILITATION AND 	:
CORRECTION, 	:
:
Defendants. 	:
OPINION & ORDER
On 	February 	12, 	2026, 	the 	United 	States 	Magistrate 	Judge 	issued 	a 	Report 	and
Recommendation in this case (ECF No. 38), recommending that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s case
pursuant 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b) and 1915(e)(2). Mr. Ellis’s objection was due February 16, 2026.
(ECF No. 38). Mr. Ellis was specifically advised of his right to object to the Report and
Recommendation within fourteen days and of the consequences of his failure to do so. No objection
has been filed. Since neither party has objected, and the deadline for such objections elapsed, this
Court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 	Mr. Ellis’s Amended
Complaint is DISMISSED.
Additionally, on February 2, 2026, Mr. Ellis filed a Motion to Amend Judgment (ECF No.
39) in response to this Court’s January 27, 2026, Order (ECF No. 36) adopting the Magistrate’s
Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 16). In this Court’s January 27, 2026, Order, this Court
allowed Mr. Ellis to file an amended complaint. That Order was not a final judgment. Accordingly,
Mr. Ellis’s requested correction under Rule 59(e) does not apply as it is an interlocutory order. Brave
Optical Inc. v. Luxottica of America Inc., 2026 WL 376931, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 11, 2026)
Case: 2:25-cv-00642-ALM-CMV Doc #: 40 Filed: 04/03/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
(“Because the Court’s Opinion and Order did not fully dispose of all issues and expressly provided
an opportunity to amend, it was not a final judgment, but rather an interlocutory order. So Rule
59(e)’s strictures do not apply.”); Lowe v. Cuyahoga Cnty./Bd. of Cnty. Commrs., 2011 WL
6960992, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 8, 2011), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Lowe v.
Cuyahoga Cnty./Bd. of Commrs., 2012 WL 37154 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 6, 2012) (“Because the Court’s
order denying summary judgment is interlocutory, Rule 59(e) does not apply and it is within this
Court’s power and discretion to reconsider its earlier ruling.”). Even if this Court were to use its
discretion to reconsider its earlier ruling, Mr. Ellis merely attempts to relitigate his arguments
regarding the computation of his sentence as already raised in his prior objection, which this Court
will not readdress, nor would such arguments be permitted under Rule 59(e). Campbell v. Forlini,
2025 WL 1970244, at *1 (E.D. Mich. July 16, 2025) (citing Howard v. United States, 533 F.3d
472, 475 (6th Cir. 2008)). Mr. Ellis’s Motion to Amend Judgment (ECF No. 39) is also DENIED.
This case is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ALGENON L. MARBLEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: April 3, 2026
Case: 2:25-cv-00642-ALM-CMV Doc #: 40 Filed: 04/03/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>