UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

ALLEN DUPREE GARRETT,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:24-cv-1642 v. JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura DAVE YOST, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER On April 12, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order and Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) granting Plaintiff Allen Dupre Garrett’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1). (R&R, ECF No. 3, PageID 162.) The Magistrate Judge also recommended, after performing the initial screen of the Complaint, that the Court dismiss this action for failure to state a claim pursuant to

(e)(2). (Id. at PageID 163, 65–66.) Mr. Garrett filed a “Second Legal Argument Brief” which the Court construes as an Objection to the R&R. (ECF No. 5.) A litigant who is the subject of an adverse report and recommendation from a magistrate judge is entitled to de novo review of those portions of the report to which proper objections are made.

(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Upon review, the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Mr. Garrett’s Objection does not respond to the R&R and comprises almost entirely of citations to various legal authorities without any additional factual allegations to support his claims. (See ECF No. 5.) Normally, a plaintiff waives any challenge to the district court’s conclusions if their objections do not specifically address the magistrate judge’s reasoning. Mira v. Marshall,

(6th Cir. 1986) (explaining that the parties have “the duty to pinpoint those portions of the magistrate’s report that the district court must specifically consider”).

After considering Mr. Garrett’s Objection on the merits and reviewing de novo this record as required by

(b) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds that Mr. Garrett’s allegations do not state a plausible claim for relief. Mr. Garrett has identified no error in the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. Accordingly, Mr. Garrett’s Objection is OVERRULED. (ECF No. 5.) The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. (ECF No. 3.) The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED, but the action is DISMISSED pursuant to

(e)(2). The Clerk is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT and close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6/10/2024 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE