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

RICO ISAIH HAIRSTON, : : Case No. 1:22-cv-104 Plaintiff, : : Judge Susan J. Dlott v. : : Order Adopting Report and FRELON SPARKS, et al., : Recommendation and Denying Motion : for Summary Judgment Without Defendant. : Prejudice to Renew

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation entered by Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr. on July 31, 2025. (Doc. 194.) The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 173) without prejudice to renew because discovery was outstanding. The Magistrate Judge will set a new deadline for dispositive motions after discovery is complete. (Doc. 194 at PageID 2421). Title 28 U.S.C § 636(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 de novo or any other standard, those aspects of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made.”). Nonetheless, 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 finds no clear error in the well-reasoned Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge has not set a new deadline for dispositive motions signaling that discovery is complete and “[t]he general rule is that summary judgment is improper if the non-movant is not afforded a sufficient opportunity for discovery.” Vance ex rel. Hammons v. U.S.,

(6th Cir. 1996). The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 194) is ADOPTED, and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 173) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RENEW. IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

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