Cummings v. State Of Ohio

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

CLIFFORD CUMMINGS, et al.,

Plaintiffs, Case No. 2:24-cv-4041 v. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson STATE OF OHIO, et al.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Order and Report and Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge on August 6, 2025. (ECF No. 49.) Plaintiffs Clifford Cummings and Abigail Cummings, proceeding in this case pro se, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants the State of Ohio, the Ohio State Highway Patrol, Trooper Robert Sabo, and Sergeant Shane Meddock. (ECF Nos. 1, 10, 23.) Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 23), raising claims against only Defendants Sabo and Meddock. The Court dismissed several claims against Defendants Sabo and Meddock and dropped Defendant Meddock as a party. (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims against Defendant Sabo remained, and Defendant Sabo filed a Motion to Dismiss those claims. (ECF No. 26; ECF No. 49, PageID 253.) After Defendant Sabo moved to dismiss, Plaintiffs filed multiple motions to amend their pleading (ECF Nos. 30, 31.) Those motions were not proper for several reasons as described by the Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 49, PageID 250–51.) The Court instructed Plaintiffs about their options to further amend the pleading or to respond to Defendant Sabo’s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 44.) Plaintiffs did not comply with the Court’s directives and filed two separate Second Amended Complaints (ECF Nos. 45, 46) without seeking leave to amend. (See ECF No. 49, PageID 251.) The Court granted Plaintiffs another opportunity to seek leave to amend the complaint (ECF No. 47), but Plaintiffs filed nothing in response. On August 6, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order and Report and Recommendation in which she denied Plaintiffs’ Motions for Leave to Amend (ECF Nos. 30, 31). (ECF No. 49, PageID 253.) The Magistrate Judge also recommended that the Court grant Defendant Sabo’s Motion to Dismiss and dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint in its entirety. (ECF No. 49, PageID 262.) Once a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation, the relevant statute provides: Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file written objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation waives a de novo determination by the district court of any issues addressed in the report and recommendation. Thomas v. Arn, 728 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1984), aff’d, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981). Plaintiffs were advised of their right to object to the Order and Report and Recommendation and of the consequences of failing to do so. (ECF No. 49, PageID 262.) Plaintiffs did not object to the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Order and Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 49.) The Court GRANTS Defendant Sabo’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 26) and DISMISSES with prejudice all Plaintiffs’ claims in the First Amended Complaint. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment, to close this case on the Court’s docket, and to mail a copy of this Opinion and Order to Plaintiffs Clifford and Abigail Cummings at 3021 Nebraska Drive, Unit 205, Bismarck, ND 58503. IT IS SO ORDERED. 9/16/2025 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE