Mark Anthony Newberry v. Montgomery County, Children Services, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
• Decided: January 30, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00175
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

MARK ANTHONY NEWBERRY,

Plaintiff, Case No. 3:25-cv-175

vs.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, District Judge Michael J. Newman CHILDREN SERVICES, et al., Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry

Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER: (1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (Doc. No. 30); (2) OVERRULING DEFENDANT MONTGOMERY COUNTY CHILDREN SERVICES’ OBJECTIONS (Doc. No. 34); (3) ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. No. 29); (4) DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE ALL OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS MCFADDEN, DAVID, BURTON, WILHELM, AND MONTGOMERY COUNTY JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES, AS WELL AS THE MCCS CONTACT CLAIMS AGAINST MONTGOMERY COUNTY CHILDREN SERVICES; (5) DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S REMAINING MOTIONS (Doc. Nos. 15, 16, 17); (6) CLARIFYING THAT PLAINTIFF’S FOSTER HOME CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS MONTGOMERY COUNTY CHILDREN SERVICES AND THE CITY OF DAYTON REMAIN PENDING; AND (7) DENYING PLAINTIFF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY ______________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff Mark Newberry brings this case pro se against Defendants Montgomery County Children Services (“MCCS”), MCCS caseworker Kiley McFadden, MCCS supervisor Amanda Davis, MCCS supervisor Monica Burton, and Montgomery County Job and Family Services (“MCJFS”). Doc. Nos. 3, 5. He claims, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, violations of his rights under the United States Constitution. See id. He alleges that Defendant MCCS recklessly placed a foster home next to his residence, causing “severe disruption, fear and retaliation.” Doc. 5 at PageID 40. These are referred to as Plaintiff’s “foster home claims.” See Doc. No. 29 at PageID 156. Further, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants MCCS, McFadden, Davis, and Burton have subjected him “to retaliatory visits, vague accusations, and psychological pressure.” Doc. No. 5 at PageID 41. These are referred to as “MCCS contact claims.” Id. at PageID 157. Plaintiff seeks an Order prohibiting MCCS or its employees from contacting him, his grandchildren, and all members of his family. Id. at PageID 42. He also seeks as well multi-million-dollar penalties for

each time MCCS visits him. Id. at PageID 41-42. On December 10, 2025, Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in which she recommended dismissing with prejudice all claims against Defendants McFadden; Davis; Burton; Guardian Ad Litem, Jennifer Wilhelm;1 MCJFC; and the MCCS contact claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Doc. No. 29. Judge Gentry further recommended denying as moot Plaintiff’s remaining motions. Id. Both Plaintiff and Defendant MCCS filed timely objections to the R&R. Doc. Nos. 30, 34. Thus, their objections to the R&R are now ripe for review. The Court has reviewed de novo, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), Plaintiff’s objections and all filings in this matter. Liberally construing Plaintiff’s pro se

filings in his favor and accepting his factual allegations as true, see Brent, 901 F.3d at 676, the Court finds no merit in Plaintiff’s objections. Judge Gentry’s R&R is not “clearly erroneous or … contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Additionally, the Court has reviewed de novo Defendant MCCS’s objections and all filings in this matter. The Court finds no merit in these objections, as Judge Gentry’s R&R is not “clearly erroneous or … contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

1 Judge Gentry liberally construed Plaintiff’s pleadings to include Wilhelm as a Defendant. Doc. No. 29 at PageID 157, n. 3. This was correct. See Brent v. Wayne Cnty. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 901 F.3d 656, 676 (6th Cir. 2018) (“We liberally construe pro se filings”). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED, and Defendant Montogomery County Children Services’ objections are OVERRULED. The R&R is hereby ADOPTED. As such, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE all claims against Defendants McFadden, Davis, Burton, Wilhelm, and MCJFS, as well as the MCCS contact claims, for lack of subject-

matter jurisdiction. Further, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s remaining motions. Doc. Nos. 15, 16, 17. Plaintiff’s foster home claims against Defendants MCCS and the City of Dayton remain pending. Finally, no appeal is presently available in this case because this Order is not a final appealable order and some of Plaintiff’s claims remain pending. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; cf. Sultaana v. Jerman, No. 1:15-cv-382, 2020 WL 13889761, at *5 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 7, 2020) (quoting Cleaver v. Elias, 852 F.2d 266, 267 (7th Cir. 1988) (“An appeal is possible in the absence of [a Rule 58 final judgment] only if the district court has clearly disposed of all pending matters”)). Because of this and for the reasons set forth herein, the Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith, and consequently,

DENIES Plaintiff leave to appeal this Order in forma pauperis. IT IS SO ORDERED. January 30, 2026 s/ Michael J. Newman Hon. Michael J. Newman United States District Judge