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

Leyah Yisrael, : : Case No. 1:24-cv-651 Plaintiff, : : Judge Susan J. Dlott v. : : Order Adopting Report and Kathleen Madden, et al., : Recommendation and Dismissing : Complaint Defendants. :

Plaintiff Leyah Yisrael, acting pro se, filed a Corrected Complaint on November 13, 2024 against thirteen governmental and non-governmental Defendants asserting claims under

for alleged violations of her constitutional rights. (Doc. 1-4.) Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz granted Yisrael leave to proceed in forma pauperis under

(a)(1). (Doc. 2.) Then, following her screening of the Corrected Complaint under

(e)(2)(B), Magistrate Judge Litkovitz issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Corrected Complaint be dismissed. (Doc. 4-1). Yisrael did not file objections to the Report and Recommendation. I. Title

(b)(1)(B) & (C) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(1) authorize magistrate judges to make recommendations concerning dispositive motions that have been referred to them. Parties then have fourteen days to make, file, and serve specific written objections to the report and recommendations.

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). When no objections are filed, “[t]here is no indication that Congress, in enacting § 636(b)(1)(C), intended to require a district judge to review [the] magistrate’s report.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); see also Weir v. Centurion, No. 3:19-CV-00131,

, at *1 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 5, 2021) (“The district court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, those aspects of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made.”). Still, some district courts follow the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 72(b) and review the report and recommendation for clear error. See e.g., Roane v. Warden of Corr. Reception Ctr.,

No. 2:22-CV-2768,

, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 28, 2022); Lassiter v. Dullaghan, No. 1:10-CV-010,

, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 13, 2011). “The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also

(b)(1) (substantively similar). The Court has reviewed the Corrected Complaint and the Report and Recommendation. When a complaint is filed in forma pauperis, a district court may dismiss it upon the court’s own initiative when the complaint “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from

such relief.

(e)(2)(B). The Court finds no clear error in the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to dismiss Yisrael’s claims because they fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and because certain Defendants are immune from suit. II. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4-1). The Court DISMISSES Yisrael’s Corrected Complaint (Doc. 1-4). The Court also CERTIFIES that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and DENIES Yisrael leave to appeal in forma pauperis under

(a)(3).

IT IS SO ORDERED. BY THE COURT:

S/Susan J. Dlott Susan J. Dlott United States District Judge