IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI DAQUAN BROWN, : Case No. 1:24-cv-316 Plaintiff, 2 Judge Matthew W. McFarland : Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman v. CINCINNATI POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., : Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Docs. 7, 16)

This matter is before the Court on the Supplemental Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7) and Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) of United States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Plaintiff filed objections to the Supplemental Report and Recommendation (Doc. 10). Plaintiff did not file any objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16), and the time for doing so has expired. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Thus, this matter is ripe for the Court's review. On August 6, 2024, the Magistrate Judge recommended that all claims against all Defendants, except for Defendants Christopher Wermuth, Emily Ward, Dustin Pect, and Elsa Esser in their individual capacities, should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim under

(e)(2)(B). (Supp. Report and Recommendation, Doc. 7.) In light of the Amended Complaint’s vague and conclusory allegations regarding a policy or custom, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the Plaintiff had failed to

sufficiently plead a cognizable

claim against the City of Cincinnati or the Individual Defendants in their official capacities. (Id. at Pg. ID 170-74.) Plaintiff objects that his Amended Complaint includes “rational and arguable complaints against all defendants,” states “policy wrongdoing,” and shows that “each defendant [has] acted under color of state law.” (Objection, Doc. 10.) This conclusory objection is not well taken. See Cole v. Yukins,

(6th Cir. 2001) (“The filing of vague, general, or conclusory objections does not meet the requirement of specific objections and is tantamount to a complete failure to object.”). In any event, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s well-reasoned conclusion that the Amended Complaint only offers vague and conclusory allegations as to the City of Cincinnati’s policy or custom. (See Am. Compl., Doc. 6; Supp. Report and Recommendation, Doc. 7.) mere conclusory allegation that a municipality employs an unlawful policy or custom, without identifying the policy or stating a pattern of conformance to that custom, is not sufficient.” Finnell v. Eppans, No. 1:20-CV-337,

, at *3 (S.D. Ohio June 15, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:20-CV-337,

(S.D. Ohio June 30, 2020) (quotation omitted). Plaintiff's objection is therefore overruled. Plaintiff did not file any objections to the Report and Recommendation in which the Magistrate Judge recommended granting the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Report and Recommendation, Doc. 16). A copy of this Report and Recommendation was mailed to Plaintiff, but it was retuned as undeliverable. (See Mailing, Doc. 19.) A party bears the burden of notifying the Court of any changes to his mailing address. Yeschick v. Mineta,

(6th Cir. 2012). Plaintiff was specifically apprised of this duty to “inform

the Court promptly of any changes in [his] address which may occur during the pendency of this lawsuit.” (See Order, Doc. 2, Pg. ID 85.) Therefore, the Report and Recommendation is ripe for review. See, e.g., Lester v. Castleberry, No. 24-11785,

, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 7, 2024) (explaining that Report and Recommendation’s return as undeliverable did not excuse party’s failure to respond). As required by

(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has made a de novo review of the record in this case. The Court finds that Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. 10) are not well-taken and are accordingly OVERRULED. Thus, the Court ADOPTS the Supplemental Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7) and Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) in their entirety and ORDERS the following: 1) For the reasons explained in the Supplemental Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7), the Court DISMISSES all claims against all Defendants, except for Defendants Christopher Wermuth, Emily Ward, Dustin Pect, and Elsa Esser in their individual capacities, for failure to state a claim under

(e)(2)(B); 2) For the reasons explained in the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16), the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13). The Court DISMISSES the claims against Defendants Christopher Wermuth, Emily Ward, Dustin Pect, and Elsa Esser in their individual capacities; and 3) This case is TERMINATED from the Court's docket. IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Haak weds By: JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND