El-Bey v. Six Unknown Federal Agents et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
J’TTONALI ONE EYE EL-BEY,
Plaintiff, Case No. 3:26-cv-59
vs.
THE UNITED STATES MARSHAL District Judge Michael J. Newman
SERVICE, et al., Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER: (1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (Doc. No. 6) TO THE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE (Doc. No. 5); (2) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; (3) TERMINATING AS MOOT
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REVIEW (Doc. No. 4); (4) CERTIFYING THAT AN
APPEAL OF THIS ORDER WOULD NOT BE TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH; (5) DENYING
PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS; (6) DISMISSING THIS CASE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE; AND (7) TERMINATING THIS CASE ON THE DOCKET
______________________________________________________________________________
In this civil case, pro se Plaintiff J’tttonali One Eye El-Bey, an inmate in federal custody,
appears to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. No. 1-1 at PageID 3. The case is now before
the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge
Gentry (Doc. No. 5), to whom this case was referred to pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Judge
Gentry recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. Doc. No. 5.
Plaintiff filed timely objections to the R&R. Doc. No. 6. The matter is now ripe for review.
Before Judge Gentry issued the R&R, she ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. Doc.
No. 2. Instead of filing an amended complaint, Plaintiff filed apparent objections to Judge Gentry’s
Order. Doc. No. 4.
Case: 3:26-cv-00059-MJN-CHG Doc #: 7 Filed: 10/14/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
The Court has reviewed de novo, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(a), Plaintiff’s objections and all filings in this matter. Liberally construing Plaintiff’s pro se
filings in his favor and accepting his factual allegations as true, the Court finds no merit in
Plaintiff’s objections. See Brent v. Wayne Cnty. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 901 F.3d 656, 676 (6th Cir.
2018) (“We liberally construe pro se filings”). Judge Gentry’s R&R is not “clearly erroneous or
. . . contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
Accordingly, the Court (1) OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R; (2) ADOPTS
the R&R in its entirety; (3) TERMINATES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s objections to the Order
requiring him to file an amended complaint; (4) CERTIFIES that any appeal of this order would
not be taken in good faith; (5) DENIES Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis; (6)
DISMISSES this case without prejudice; and (7) TERMINATES this case on the docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 14, 2026 s/Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge
Case: 3:26-cv-00059-MJN-CHG Doc #: 7 Filed: 10/14/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>