Mobley v. Farmer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION LEXINGTON KENNETH MOBLEY, ) ) Plaintiff ) Civil No. 5:20-cv-00513-GFVT-EBA ) V. ) ) ORDER DIRECTOR FARMER, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) *** *** *** ** This matter is before the Court on a Recommended Disposition filed by United States Judge Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins. [R. 32.] Plaintiff Kenneth Mobley filed a set of pro se motions seeking relief against the Fayette County Detention Center under Section 1983. [R. 18; R. 19; R. 29; R. 30.] Consistent with local practice, Judge Atkins reviewed the pending motions and prepared a Recommended Disposition. [R. 32.] For the reasons that follow, the Recommended Disposition will be adopted.

After considering the record, Judge Atkins determined that Mr. Mobley’s requests for relief, including permission to amend his complaint and a temporary restraining order, should be denied. [R. 32.] First, Judge Atkins recommends that Mr. Mobley’s Motion to Amend [R. 18] be denied because the additional claims and defendants he seeks to add “would be subject to dismissal due to the vague and conclusory allegations” he makes, and therefore amendment would be futile. Id. at 2-3 (citing Miller v. Calhoun County, 408 F.3d 803 (6th Cir. 2005) (“Amendment of a complaint is futile when the proposed amendment would not permit the complaint to survive a motion to dismiss.”). Additionally, Judge Atkins found amendment to be futile because Mr. Mobley “has failed to demonstrate exhaustion of his administrative remedies with respect to the new claims against additional defendants.” [R. 32 at 3.] Next, Judge Atkins recommended that the remainder of Mr. Mobley’s pending motions for preliminary injunctions [R. 18, 19, 20] against the FCDC be dismissed as moot because he is no longer housed there. [R. at 4 (citing Ledger v. Walters, 230 F.3d 1358 (6th Cir. 2000)]. Finally, because Mr. Mobley is no longer housed at the FCDC, Judge Atkins recommends that Mr. Mobley’s Motion for Order [R. 30] (styled as a “Motion for Summary Judgment”) be denied as moot. Id. at 4.

Generally, this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of a recommended disposition to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). When no objections are made, however, this Court is not required to “review . . . a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard . . . .” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Parties who fail to object to a Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation are also barred from appealing a district court’s order adopting that Report and Recommendation. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed, and the time to do so has now expired.1 Nevertheless, this Court has considered the record, and it ultimately agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.

Accordingly, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [R. 32] is ADOPTED as and for

1 Though Magistrate Judge Atkins’s Report and Recommendation [R. 32] was returned undelivered and it is likely that Mr. Mobley was unable to review the Recommendation prior to the expiration of the objection period, it is the responsibility of the parties to ensure that the Court always has a current address on file during the pendency of litigation. Mr. Mobley was notified of this requirement at the start of this litigation and has updated his address previously. [R. 8; R. 31.] His failure to do so prior to the mailing of the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation does not warrant him additional time to object. the Opinion of the Court; 2. Mr. Mobley Motion to Amend [R. 18] is DENIED; 3. Mr. Mobley’s Motions for Preliminary Injunctions [R. 18; R. 19; R. 29] are DENIED AS MOOT; 4. Mr. Mobley’s Motion for Order [R. 30] is DENIED AS MOOT.

This the 6th day of October, 2021.

hcge : OS V OS ay J Gregory F*Van Tatenhove United States District Judge