UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL SLOCUM

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:18-cv-423 v. JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE Magistrate Judge Litkovitz SGT. S. BEAR, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER This cause comes before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s March 26, 2021, Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 101). The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court DENY Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. 99) and DENY IN PART AND GRANT IN PART Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. 87). Specifically, the R&R recommends granting Defendants summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation and inappropriate supervision claims, and denying Defendants summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim. The R&R advised both parties that a failure to object within the 14 days specified by the R&R may result in forfeiture of rights on appeal, which includes the right to District Court review. (See Doc. 101, #601). See also Thomas v. Arn,

(1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting § 636(b)(1)(C), intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”); Berkshire v. Beauvais,

(6th Cir. 2019) (noting “failfure] to file an objection to the magistrate judge’s R&R ... is forfeiture’);

(b)(1)(C). Accordingly, the parties here needed to object by April 9, 2021. The time for filing objections has long since passed, and no party has objected. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 101). The Court thus GRANTS Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. 87), but only as to Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation and inappropriate supervision claims. The Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment Claim. Separately, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. 99) in its entirety. SO ORDERED.

August 19, 2021 DATE DOUGLAS R. COLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE