United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
Michael R. Barrett Judge
matter is before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge's
December 22, 2016 Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) recommending that this Court grant
the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Victoria Baldrick,
Chris Brown, Jeff Carrol, Hamilton County Jobs And Family
Services (“HCJFS”), Hamilton County Sheriff,
Charmaine McGuffey, Mark Schoonover, Nicholas Varney, Moira
Weir, Katie Woodside (“the County Defendants”)
(Doc. 27); grant the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants
Chief Eliot Isaac and Cincinnati Police Department
(“the City Defendants”) (Doc. 34); grant the
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Defendants Eric
Crossty, Elmwood Place Police Department, William Wilson
(“the Elmwood Place Defendants”) (Doc. 40); and
grant the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by
Defendant William Peskin (Doc. 41). Also before the Court is
the Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment filed against
Defendant Rodney Anderson. (Doc. 59).
a traffic stop on August 2, 2016, Plaintiff Jaiyanah Bey was
arrested and charged with one count of resisting arrest, one
count of endangering children, and one count of failure to
comply with an order or signal of a police officer. (Doc.
27-1). Plaintiff's son was present during the traffic
stop. Plaintiff claims that as part of the traffic stop,
Defendants Eric Crossty and Rodney Anderson stole her
personal property and endangered her son. (Doc. 3). Plaintiff
also claims that she was arrested without probable cause.
(Doc. 3). On August 3, 2016, Plaintiff was released after
posting bond. (Doc. 3). On August 4, 2016, employees of
Defendant Hamilton County Job and Family Services
(“HCJFS”), including Defendant Victoria Baldrick,
went to Plaintiff's home to take physical custody of
Plaintiff's son. (Id.) HCJFS filed for emergency
custody of Plaintiff's son, and Defendant Magistrate
Katie Woodside granted custody to HCJFS. (Id.)
complaint contains the following causes of action: denial of
right to travel, denial of due process, excessive and
unreasonable force, false imprisonment and unlawful
detention, kidnapping, denial of due process (assault and
battery), abuse of process, defamation, violation of personal
right to liberty, denied right to truth in evidence, false
arrest, racketeering. Plaintiff brings these claims pursuant
to the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends granting the County
and City Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 27, 34);
and the Elmwood Place Defendants and Defendant Peskin's
Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings (Docs. 40, 41). The
Magistrate Judge also recommends that all remaining pending
motions (Docs. 12, 28, 32, 36, 46, 47, 51) be denied as moot.
parties were given proper notice pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 72(b), including notice that the parties
would waive further appeal if they failed to file objections
to the R&R in a timely manner. See United States v.
Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-950 (6th Cir. 1981).
Plaintiff filed Objections to the R&R. (Doc. 54).
Defendants filed Responses to Plaintiff's Objections.
(Docs. 55, 56, 57). Plaintiff then responded to
Defendants' Responses (Doc. 58).
Standards of review
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) states that if a party
objects to a magistrate's report and recommendation, the
party must file “specific written objections” to
the recommendation. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). A general
objection to a magistrate's report, without specifically
indicating the issues of contention, does not satisfy the
“specific written objections” requirement.
Howard v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 932
F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). Defendants argue that
Plaintiff has failed to file specific objections. Such
arguments are misplaced. In her objections, Plaintiff
identifies and repeats statements made in the R&R and
responds to each with an argument labelled as
“rebuttal.” (See Doc. 54). While some of these
arguments contain general statements, these statements are
not tantamount to a general objection to the entirety of the
Magistrate Judge's R&R.
complaint may be dismissed according to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), for a “failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.” A motion for
judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure is reviewed under the same standard
as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Mixon
v. State of Ohio, 193 F.3d 389, 399-400 (6th Cir.
1999). In reviewing a motion to dismiss, the Court must
accept the plaintiff's allegations as true and construe
the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Bassett v. NCAA, 528 F.3d 426, 430 (6th Cir. 2008).
The complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations,
yet it must provide “more than an unadorned,
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)
(citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544
(2007)). However, courts must apply “less stringent
standards” in determining whether pro se
pleadings state a claim for which relief can be granted.
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976).
state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege:
“1) the deprivation of a right secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States and 2) the
deprivation was caused by a person acting under color of
state law.” Tahfs v. Proctor, 316 F.3d 584,
590 (6th Cir. 2003). However, as the Sixth Circuit has
explained: “It is not enough for a complaint under
§ 1983 to contain mere conclusory allegations of
unconstitutional conduct by persons acting under color of
state law. Some factual basis for such claims must be set
forth in the pleadings.” Chapman v. City of
Detroit, 808 F.2d 459, 465 (6th Cir. 1986).
Magistrate Judge identified several Defendants who were named
in the caption of Plaintiff's Complaint, but not
specifically mentioned anywhere else in the Complaint. These
Defendants are: Baldrick, Varny, Brown, Robison, Weir, Isaac,
Wilson and Peskin. “Merely listing names in the caption
of the complaint and alleging constitutional violations in
the body of the complaint is not enough to sustain recovery
under § 1983.” Gilmore v. Corr. Corp. of
Am., 92 F.App'x 188, 190 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing
Flagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155-57, 98
S.Ct. 1729, 56 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978)). Plaintiff has not
identified additional factual allegations in her objections.