United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
ARETHA D. BROWN, Plaintiff,
JAMES E. WILLIAMS, Defendant.
Magistrate Judge Stephanie Bowman
OPINION AND ORDER
Michael R. Barrett, Judge United States District Court
matter is before the Court on the December 21, 2015 Report
and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Magistrate
Judge, which recommends dismissing the Complaint with
prejudice following a sua sponte review. (Doc. 4).
Plaintiff timely filed her Objection to the Report on
December 31, 2015. (Doc. 5).
a resident of Henderson, Nevada brings this action against
Defendant James E. Williams of Cincinnati. She alleges that
Defendant negligently operated a motor vehicle on February
13, 2008, resulting in injury. Plaintiff was granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. (Doc. 2).
recommending dismissal of the Complaint, the Magistrate Judge
reached two primary conclusions. First, the Magistrate Judge
concluded that there was no basis to infer federal
jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims, as she appears to
have previously litigated the same claims. Second, the
Magistrate Judge concluded that her claims against Defendant
arising from his alleged negligence in 2008 are time-barred.
(Doc. 4, PageID 80-81).
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
In Forma Pauperis
U.S.C. § 1915(e) requires federal district courts to
screen in forma pauperis cases at the moment of
filing and to sua sponte dismiss those complaints
that are frivolous or fail to state a claim for relief.
Wingo v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., 499 F.
App'x 453, 454 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Grinter v.
Knight, 532 F.3d 567, 571-72 (6th Cir. 2008)). A
complaint filed by a pro se plaintiff must be
“liberally construed” and “held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007) (per curiam) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). By the same token, a complaint
“must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.'” (Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Hill v. Lappin,
630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010) (“dismissal
standard articulated in Iqbal and Twombly
governs dismissals for failure to state a claim” under
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1)).
objections to a magistrate judge's report and
recommendation are received on a dispositive matter, the
assigned 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). After
review, the district judge “may accept, reject, or
modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence;
or return the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.” Id.; see also 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). General objections are insufficient
to preserve any issues for review: “[a] general
objection to the entirety of the Magistrate [Judge]'s
report has the same effect as would a failure to
object.” Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human
Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). Nevertheless,
the objections of a petitioner appearing pro se will
be construed liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
to Plaintiff's complaint is a copy of an Amended
Complaint and Jury Demand filed on behalf of Plaintiff, by
her then attorney, against Defendant and three other
defendants in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas,
which is date stamped January 13, 2010. As it relates to
Defendant, her state court complaint alleges Defendant
negligently operated a motor vehicle on February 13, 2008,
resulting in injury to Plaintiff. The Magistrate Judge took
judicial notice of the docket sheet in the state court case
indicating that the case was dismissed without prejudice on
November 17, 2010. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a motion to
“vacate judgment” and for “stay, ”
which was denied on May 30, 2013. The Magistrate Judge also
noted that Plaintiff appears to have attempted to raise her
claims against Defendant in this court by filing a petition
for writ of mandamus, as well as attempting to raise her
claims in the United States Supreme Court. (Doc. 1-1, PageID
13-15, 16-21). Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge concluded
that Plaintiff has previously fully litigated the same claims
and thus, this Court does not have jurisdiction. In addition,
the Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff's claims
against Defendant appear to be time-barred, as they relate to
Defendant's alleged negligence in operating his motor
vehicle on February 13, 2008.
appears to raise the following objections to the Magistrate
Judge's R&R: 1) Plaintiff did not receive justice in
the previous proceedings regarding the automobile accident
dated February 13, 2008; 2) Nationwide breached its duty to
properly investigate and acted in bad faith; and 3) Defendant
and Nationwide breached contractual obligations ...