IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Tareq R. Jabr,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:24-cv-3580 Judge James L. Graham Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson Ohio Dept. of Taxation, et al.,

Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on the objection of Plaintiff Tareq R. Jabr, proceeding pro se, to the Court’s September 4, 2024 Order (ECF No. 11) adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 6). Because plaintiff has no procedural right to object to the Order (as he did to the Report and Recommendation), the Court will construe his filing as a motion for reconsideration. A party moving to reconsider must show: “(1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling law; or (4) a need to prevent manifest injustice.” Leisure Caviar, LLC v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv.,

(6th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted). Plaintiff has not satisfied this standard. His present objections mirror those proffered in prior filings. Plaintiff presents broad and unsupported claims that a variety of his constitutional rights have been violated and demands $200,000,000 in damages. (ECF No. 13 at 1). Plaintiff also states that he holds “this Court fully liable for [his] damages” and threatens to “take further actions, and suits on this Court.” (Id. at 1-2). Ultimately, Plaintiff fails to present new information or show that an intervening change in controlling law merits reconsideration. Plaintiff also does not show that a clear error of law is present or that reconsideration is necessary to prevent manifest injustice. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED (ECF No. 9). IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ James L. Graham JAMES L. GRAHAM United States District Judge

DATE: September 20, 2024