Oliver v. Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI TANYQUA OLIVER, : Case No. 1:23-cv-57 Plaintiff, Judge Matthew W. McFarland Vv. Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman HAMILTON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, et al., : Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 4)

This action is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) (Doc. 4) of United States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman, to whom this case is referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). In the Report, Magistrate Judge Bowman recommends that this Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, in its entirety, with prejudice. (See Doc. 4.) Plaintiff submitted timely objections (Doc. 5). Thus, the matter is ripe for the Court's review. The Court finds that Plaintiff's objections do not present any new arguments that were not otherwise set forth in her Complaint. The allegations within the Complaint were thoroughly and properly addressed and rejected by Magistrate Judge Bowman. These general objections are not sufficient to preserve any issues for review, as rehashing the same arguments made previously defeats the purpose and efficiency of the Federal Magistrate’s Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636. Gilmore v. Russian, No. 2:16-cv-1133, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93843, at *1 (S.D. Ohio June 19, 2017) (citing Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human

Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991) (“A general objection to the entirety of the magistrate’s report has the same effect as would a failure to objection.”). Plaintiff otherwise fails to demonstrate any factual or legal error by Magistrate Judge Bowman in her Report. The claims brought by Plaintiff against Judge Robert P. Ruelman are barred by judicial immunity. See Bush v. Rauch, 38 F.3d 842, 847 (6th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff fails to present any argument to show that Judge Ruelman’s actions were not protected. (See Objection, Doc. 5.) Plaintiff does not raise any objections to Magistrate Judge Bowman’s findings as they relate to the claims brought against Sue Selegean and the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. (Id.) Thus, as detailed in the Report, Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon said review, the Court finds that Plaintiff's objections are not well-taken and are accordingly OVERRULED. Thus, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Bowman’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4) in its entirety. The Court ORDERS the following: (1) This action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). (2) The Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), that any appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and that Plaintiff should be denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis. (3) This matter is hereby TERMINATED from the Court’s docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT QF OHI By: WH ph We MATTHEW W. McFARLAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE