Terrance J. Feaster v. Annette Chambers-Smith, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Terrance J. Feaster, : : Case No. 1:22-cv-453 Plaintiff, : : Judge Susan J. Dlott v. : : Order Adopting Report and Annette Chambers-Smith, et ai., : Recommendation and : Denying Injunctive Relief Defendants. : Plaintiff Terrance J. Feaster, an inmate housed at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (“SOCF”), has requested that the Court issue a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. (Docs. 53-54.) Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr. issued a Report and Recommendation on December 30, 2025 recommending that his request for injunctive relief be denied. (Doc. 99.) The Magistrate Judge extended the deadline to file objections to the Report and Recommendation to February 13, 2026. (Doc. 102.) Feaster did not file objections.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(1) authorize magistrate judges to make recommendations concerning dispositive motions that have been referred to them. 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, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985); see also Weir v. Centurion, No. 3:19-CV-00131, 2021 WL 5165930, 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, 2022 WL 16535903, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 28, 2022); Lassiter v. Dullaghan, No. 1:10-CV-010, 2011 WL 110259, 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 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (substantively similar).

The Court reviewed the parties’ filings on this matter and concludes that the Magistrate Judge made no clear error in recommending that Feaster’s request for injunctive relief be denied.

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 99) is ADOPTED, and Feaster’s request for a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order (Docs. 53-54) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT: tian: (ibis United States District Yudge