govinfo:USCOURTS-ohsd-1_25-cv-00616-1

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 
WESTERN DIVISION 
 
Robert Mayberry, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
 v. 
 
Chae Harris Warden W.C.I., 
 
 Defendants. 
 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
 
 

 
Judge Susan J. Dlott 
 
Order Adopting Report and 
Recommendation 
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation issued by the 
Magistrate Judge on April 7, 2026, to which no objections were filed. (Doc. 15.) For the 
reasons that follow, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations will be ADOPTED. 
Plaintiff Robert Mayberry filed a pro se complaint for deliberate indifference to serious 
medical needs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 2, 2025. (Doc. 3.) Defendant Chae 
Harris Warden W.C. I. filed a Motion to Dismiss, and Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File 
an Amended Complaint. (Doc. 5, 12.) On April 7, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report 
and Recommendation in which he found Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust his administrative 
remedies, a requirement under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, before 
bringing an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 15 at PageID 79, 81.) As such, the Magistrate 
Judge recommended: (1) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be granted without prejudice for failure 
to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended 
Complaint be denied without prejudice on grounds of futility. (Id. at PageID 81.) Plaintiff did 
not file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 
Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 72(b)(1) 
authorize magistrate judges to make recommendations concerning dispositive motions that have 
Case: 1:25-cv-00616-SJD-SCS Doc #: 16 Filed: 05/26/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 
 
been referred to them. Parties then have fourteen days to file and serve specific written 
objections to the report and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). If 
a party files objections to a report and recommendation on a dispositive matter, a district judge 
must review the objections under the de novo standard. Baker v. Peterson, 67 F. App’x 308, 310 
(6th Cir. 2003). “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) (substantially similar). 
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.”). Nonetheless, some district courts follow the Advisory Committee Notes to 
Rule 72(b) and review the report and recommendation for clear error. 
As no objections were filed, and finding the Report and Recommendation to be well-
taken, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 15.) The Court, therefore, 
(1) GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss without prejudice for failure to state a claim under 
42 U.S.C. § 1983, and (2) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint 
on grounds of futility. (Doc. 5, 12.) 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 Dated: May 26, 2026 S/Susan J. Dlott_____________________________ 
 Judge Susan J. Dlott 
 United States District Court 
 
 
Case: 1:25-cv-00616-SJD-SCS Doc #: 16 Filed: 05/26/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight