UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION LEXINGTON

STEPHAN JACOBS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case No. 5:23-cv-00208-GFVT-EBA v. ) ) SHELIA GANT, et al., ) ORDER ) Defendants. )

*** *** *** ***

This matter is before the Court on a Report & Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins. [R. 66.] The Plaintiff, Stephan Jacobs, filed a pro se complaint under

alleging that the Defendants violated his civil rights. [R. 13.] The Complaint is based on the Defendants’ “failure to return [sic] Jacobs’ program certificates and [his subsequent] inability to receive good-time credit.” [R. 66 at 2.] Mr. Jacobs’ claims “largely concern Defendants’ purported racial discrimination against him.”

. The Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that there is no genuine issue of material facts and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [R. 59.] The Plaintiff did not file a Response but instead filed a cross-motion for Summary Judgment. [R. 60.] Judge Atkins then prepared a Report & Recommendation. [R. 66.] After considering the record, Judge Atkins determined that the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted, and this matter should be dismissed with prejudice.

Mr. Jacobs alleges that Defendants violated the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Sixteenth Amendments. [R. 1; R. 13; R. 17.] Judge Atkins found that the Defendants met their burden of showing there was no dispute remaining as to a material fact. [R. 66 at 19.] With respect to Mr. Jacobs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Judge Atkins found that “Jacobs’ claims fail even when viewed in light most favorable to him.”

Neither party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Generally, this Court

must make a de novo determination of those portions of a recommended disposition to which objections are made.

(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,

(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,

(6th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, this Court has considered the record and it agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. Accordingly, and the Court being sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins’ Report and Recommendation [R. 66] is

ADOPTED as and for the Opinion of the Court; 2. Plaintiff Stephan Jacobs’s Motion for Summary Judgment [R. 60] is DENIED; 3. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [R. 59] is GRANTED; 4. The Plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED in its entirety with prejudice; and 5. All other matters being resolved, JUDGMENT in favor of Defendants will be entered contemporaneously herewith, and this matter will be STRICKEN from the Court’s active docket. This the 25th day of March 2025.

— rh OSS Ot gs eo Gregory F*Van Tatenhove United States District Judge