Nealey v. The Barcus Company, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

DEANDRE D. NEALEY,

Plaintiff, :

Case No. 2:24-cv-4037 v. Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison

Magistrate Judge Chelsey M.

Vascura THE BARCUS COMPANY, et al., :

Defendants.

ORDER DeAndre D. Nealey filed this suit, without the assistance of counsel, against several Franklin County Municipal Court Judges, the property management company that brought an eviction action against him, and the property management company’s attorney. (Compl., ECF No. 1-1.) Mr. Nealey alleges that he was wrongfully evicted. (Id.) After performing an initial screen of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (R&R, ECF No. 5.) Mr. Nealey timely objected. (Obj., ECF No. 8.) If a party objects to a report and recommendation, 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); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Upon review, the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Magistrate Judge construed Mr. Nealey’s § 1983 claim as attacking the

validity of the Franklin County Municipal Court’s eviction proceedings. (R&R, PAGEID # 60.) She explained that federal district courts lack jurisdiction over such claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. (Id. (citing, inter alia, Rooker v. Fidelity Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983)).) The Magistrate Judge went on to conclude that the other federal statutes cited in Mr. Nealey’s Complaint—all criminal statutes—do not provide a private cause of action. (Id., PAGEID # 61.)

The Court finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions or reasoning. Mr. Nealey’s objection provides no basis otherwise. There, Mr. Nealey repeats many of the allegations that appear in the Complaint, but he does not explain why this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over any of his claims.1 (See Obj.) Accordingly, Mr. Nealey’s Objections (ECF No. 8) are OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 5). The

Complaint is DISMISSED. Mr. Nealey’s pending motions (ECF Nos. 2, 4, 7) are DENIED as moot. The Clerk is DIRECTED to TERMINATE this case. IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Sarah D. Morrison SARAH D. MORRISON, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1 Mr. Nealey’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 6) contains the same deficiencies as his original Complaint.