Solly

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

GREGORY L. SOLLY, :

:

Plaintiff, : Case No. 2:24-cv-1249

:

v. : Judge Algenon L. Marbley

:

LISA HOYING, CHAIRPERSON : Magistrate Judge Shimeall

OHIO PAROLE BOARD, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

OPINION & ORDER

This matter comes before this Court on Plaintiff Gregory Solly’s Objections (ECF No. 8)

to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 7). In the Report and

Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s

Complaint in part and allow some of the claims to proceed to further development (ECF No. 7).

For the reasons that follow, this Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation (ECF No. 7) and OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff’s

Complaint (ECF No. 6) is DISMISSED in part.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Plaintiff Gregory L. Solly is a prisoner at Allen/Oakwood Correctional Institution

(“AOCI”) proceeding pro se. (ECF No. 7). Solly was “convicted in 1980 of the murder of a five-

year old boy.” Solly v. Mausser, 2018 WL 1070504, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 27, 2018); see also State

v. Solly, 6th Dist. Lucas, 1983 WL 2335, at *1 (Dec. 23, 1983). He is currently serving “an

indefinite sentence of fifteen years to life, with parole eligibility after serving fifteen years.” Solly

v. Mausser, 2018 WL 1070504, at *1. In his Complaint, Solly brings various Section 1983 claims.

(ECF No. 1). First, Solly alleges that Defendants, members of the Ohio Parole Board, denied him

a meaningful and purposeful parole hearing as promulgated by Ohio Department of Rehabilitation

and Correction Ohio Administrative Code. (Id. at 3). He further alleges violations of his First

Amendment rights, equal protection violations, that Defendants “unconstitutionally increased

Plaintiff’s crime from 2nd degree murder to aggravated murder [2x],” and Eighth Amendment

violations. (Id. at 3–4). The Complaint names the following parties as defendants: Lisa Hoying,

Chairperson for the Ohio Adult Parole Authority and member of the Central Office Board of

Review (“COBR”); Annette Chambers-Smith, Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation

and Correction (“ODRC”); Glenn Holmes, Ohio Parole Board (“OBP”) Member; Scott Widmer,

OBP Member; Joe Brumfield, OBP Member; Lance Pressley, OBP Member; Steve Herron, OBP

Member; Scott R. Coleson, OBP Member; and Marc Houk, OBP Member. (Id.).

The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on June 18, 2024, and

recommended this Court allow Solly’s first two claims to proceed against seven Defendants:

Holmes, Brumfield, Widmer, Pressley, Herron, Hoying, and Houk. (ECF No. 7 at 23). The

Magistrate Judge further recommended this Court allow the third claim to proceed against four

Defendants: Brumfield, Widmer, Pressley, and Herron. (Id.). Finally, the Magistrate Judge

recommended this Court dismiss the remaining claims under 28 U.S.C.§1915A, including: 1) the

official capacity for damages; 2) the equal protection claims under the Fourteenth Amendment; 3)

the religion claim under the First Amendment; 4) the Eighth Amendment claims based on denial

of parole and an “increased” offense; 5) the claim against Parole Officer Coleson; and 6) the claim

against Director Chambers-Smith. (Id.).

Solly timely filed objections to the R&R, arguing that the Magistrate Judge erred by

recommending dismissal of his equal protection claim. (ECF No. 8 at 8–11).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a party’s objections to a Report and Recommendation, “[t]he district judge

must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly

objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). In so doing, “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or

modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the

magistrate judge with instruction.” Id.

When a plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, “the court shall dismiss” their complaint or

any portion of it that: “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). While detailed factual allegations are not necessary at the pleading stage,

mere “labels and conclusions” are insufficient to state a proper claim. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 545 (2007). Pro se complaints are to be construed liberally, but “basic pleading

essentials” still are required. Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). Thus, to survive

screening, a complaint must contain sufficient facts which, if accepted as true, would plausibly

state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

III. LAW AND ANALYSIS

In his objections, Solly contends that the Magistrate Judge relied on faulty information

from the ODRC website in dismissing his claim that he was “deliberately targeted” and “punished

more severely” than his co-defendant, Phillip Jovanovich. (ECF No. 8 at 8). “To state

an equal protection claim, Plaintiff must show intentional and arbitrary discrimination by the state;

that is, he must show that he has been intentionally treated differently from

others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment.”

Coleman-Young v. Bonn, 2025 WL 718974, at *6 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 6, 2025) (citing Vill. of

Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000)).

Solly argues that in 2023, Jovanovich was initially granted parole by the OBP, but such

decision was subsequently overturned after outcry from the public and due to the efforts of Block

Parole, Inc. (Id. at 9). Solly bases his arguments on a narrative displayed on Block Parole’s website

contending that the organization successfully prevented the release of Jovanovich. (See ECF No.

8 at 9). The website provides in relevant part:

Solly and Jovanovich came up again for parole in 2023. Solly was denied parole and given

another maximum 10-year-continuance. Unbelievably Jovanovich was granted parole. The

2023 records for Jovanovich state, “The Board finds that Incarcerated Adult has served a

sufficient portion of his sentence, has completed programming to abate his risk to re-

offend, and has a supportive release plan, thereby rendering him suitable for release onto

parole supervision at this time.”

We were shocked and appalled by the Ohio Parole Board’s decision the release Jovanovich.

In over 20 years we cannot recall ever seeing an inmate go from a 10-year maximum

continuance to being granted parole. We never would have imagined it would happen in

the case of a horrific child killer who 33 years later, “takes no responsibility for his behavior

for any of his actions and does not seem to grasp the seriousness of the offense.”

Jovanovich was days away from getting an official release date when we contacted the

Lucas County Ohio Prosecutor’s Office. After presenting our facts, the Prosecutor’s Office

agreed to request a Full Board Hearing to urge the Ohio Parole Board to reconsider their

decision.

See “Phillip Jovanovich,” Block Parole’s website, https://www.blockparole.com/inmate/phillip-

jovanovich/ (last visited Apr. 7, 2026).

Solly contends that “had Jovanovich’s initial parole decision sheet been recorded and

posted on ODRC’s website, the Magistrate Judge would have found that Plaintiff's claim is correct

and that Plaintiff was not equally treated the same as his co-defendant.” (ECF No. 8 at 9). Notably,

however, Solly provides this Court with no proof of this initial parole decision sheet. Instead, he

merely relies on the information listed on Block Parole’s website as factual without any support

for its veracity. Even if this Court were provided with such information, Solly’s claims would still

be deficient. As the Magistrate Judge correctly opined, the ultimate outcome as provided on the

ODRC website is that Solly and his co-defendant were both denied parole and given a 10-year

continuance. (ECF No. 7 at 13); See “Offender Details” for Phillip Jovanovich, ODRC’s website,

https://appgateway.drc.ohio.gov/OffenderSearch/Search/Details/A161429 (last visited Apr. 7,

2026); “Offender Details” for Gregory Solly, ODRC’s website,

https://appgateway.drc.ohio.gov/OffenderSearch/Search/Details/A160947 (last visited Apr. 7,

2026). As such, Solly has failed to establish that he was treated differently than a similarly situated

individual to support an equal protection claim.

Second, Solly challenges the Magistrate Judge’s finding “that plaintiff made only a

conclusory statement that he was treated differently than others, and has failed to state a plausible

equal protection claim.” (ECF No. 8 at 10). Solly seemingly interpreted this to mean that his

Complaint was deficient in that he did not name the other individuals who were similarly situated

and thus provided a list of various individuals who he contends are similarly situated. In his

objections, Solly merely provides a list of names, yet fails to expand upon how these individuals

are similarly situated in all relevant aspects. See Umani v. Michigan Dept. of Corr., 432 F. App’x.

453, 460 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344, 352

(6th Cir.1998)) (“To be a similarly-situated [individual], the comparative [individual] ‘must have

dealt with the same [decisionmaker], have been subject to the same standards, and have engaged

in the same conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances that would

distinguish their conduct or [the defendant’s] treatment of them for it.’”); see also Quisenberry v.

Valentine, 2024 WL 1261911, at *4 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 25, 2024) (finding plaintiff failed to

demonstrate he was similarly situated with the comparator inmate in all material respects). Without

any further details regarding these alleged similarly situated inmates, Solly has failed to state an

equal protection claim for which relief can be granted. This Court thus adopts the Report and

Recommendation and enter it as the findings and conclusions of this Court.

For the reasons provided, this Court ORDERS as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 7) is ADOPTED as the

opinion of the Court.

2. Plaintiff's Objections (ECF No. 8) are OVERRULED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: April 16, 2026