United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (DOCS.
TIMOTHY S. BLACK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General
Reference to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L.
Litkovitz. On August 1, 2018, Plaintiff Angelo Taylor filed a
complaint against the Springboro Municipal Court alleging due
process violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc.
3). On the same day, Judge Litkovitz entered a Report and
Recommendation recommending dismissal of Plaintiff's
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), as the
sole named defendant, the Springboro Municipal Court is not a
legal entity capable of being sued in a § 1983 action.
filed untimely objections to the Report and Recommendation on
September 10, 2018. (Doc. 5). Plaintiff also filed a motion
for leave to amend his complaint, seeking to substitute
Officer Randy Peagler as the defendant, while otherwise
asserting the same substantive claims. (Doc. 6). On June 27,
2019, the Magistrate Judge entered a second Report and
Recommendation recommending that the Court deny
Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint. (Doc. 20).
Plaintiff again filed untimely objections to the Report and
Recommendation. (Doc. 21). Defendant Springboro Mayor's
Court filed a response (Doc. 22).
objections are not well-taken. First, because Plaintiff's
objections to the Magistrate Judge's Reports and
Recommendations were untimely, they fail as a matter of law.
See Jones v. Warden, Ross Corr. Inst., No.
1:11-cv-871, 2013 WL 6230365, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 2, 2013).
Regardless, Plaintiff's objections fail on the merits.
Magistrate Judge's second Report and Recommendation
explains that permitting Plaintiff to amend his complaint to
substitute Officer Peagler as the defendant would be futile,
because Plaintiff's complaint remains deficient for
several reasons. First, the Magistrate Judge noted that
because it appears the state criminal proceedings underlying
Plaintiff's federal complaint are ongoing, the Court must
abstain from hearing Plaintiff's federal constitutional
challenges until resolution of the state court proceedings.
(Doc. 20 at 3) (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S.
37 (1971)). Moreover, the Magistrate Judge found that because
Plaintiff failed to allege that the state court proceedings
were resolved in his favor, his § 1983 action seeking
monetary damages on the basis of an allegedly
unconstitutional conviction or sentence would be
“Heck-barred.” (Id. at 3) (citing
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994)).
Lastly, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff's
particular claim that Officer Peagler “lied, violating
his Oath of Office, and went outside the scope of his duties
to harass and assault” Plaintiff failed on its face to
state a claim for relief. (Id. at 5).
objections to this second Report and Recommendation do not
reference any specific findings of the Report and
Recommendation and fail to identify any errors contained
therein. Regardless, the Court has reviewed the
comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) and has
considered de novo all of the filings in this
matter. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court does
determine that the Reports and Recommendations (Docs. 4, 20)
should be and are hereby ADOPTED in their
for the reasons stated above:
civil action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B);
Plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint (Doc. 6) is
Court certifies that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3), an appeal of this Order would not be taken in
good faith and therefore DENIES petitioner
leave to appeal in forma pauperis;
Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case
is TERMINATED from the docket of this Court.