Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Taylor v. Springboro Mayor's Court

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

August 23, 2019

ANGELO LEE TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
v.
SPRINGBORO MAYOR'S COURT, Defendant.

          Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz

          DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (DOCS. 4, 20)

          TIMOTHY S. BLACK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This 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. (Doc. 4).

         Plaintiff 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).

         Plaintiff's 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.

         The 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).

         Plaintiffs 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.[1] 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 entirety.

         Accordingly, for the reasons stated above:

         1) This civil action is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B);

         2) Plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint (Doc. 6) is DENIED;

         3) The 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;

         4) The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is TERMINATED from the docket of this Court.

         IT ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.