Steele v. Kentucky Commonwealth of et al

Filing 31

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 28 Report and Recommendation, denying 27 Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Vacate Opinion and Order and Demand for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 1/9/2014. (km1) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/9/2014: # 1 Certified Mail Receipt) (km1).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

JOHN KEVIN STEELE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
KIMBERLY ANN STEELE, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

NO. 1:12-CV-00439

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (doc. 28), and Plaintiff’s Objection
(doc. 29).
I.

Background
The Court issued an Order in this case on May 1, 2013,

affirming the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to
dismiss the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction

due to collateral

estoppel, due to the “domestic relations exception” to federal
jurisdiction,

due

to

the

application

of

the

Rooker-Feldman

doctrine, and due to Plaintiff’s failure to state a viable claim
for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (docs. 24, 25).

Plaintiff

subsequently filed his motion for relief from judgment and his
demand for findings of fact and conclusions of law (doc. 27).

The

Magistrate Judge reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion, found no basis for
the relief requested, and recommended the Court deny such motion
(doc. 28).

Specifically, she found no basis under Fed. R. Civ. P.

59(e) for such relief, as Plaintiff had not shown an intervening
change in controlling law, nor a clear error of law, no new factual
allegations, and no manifest injustice resulting from the Court’s
Order (Id.).

She further found relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

52 inapplicable because the Court conducted no bench trial nor used
an advisory jury, but simply determined that a sua sponte dismissal
was appropriate (Id.).

Under such circumstances, she opined, no

findings of fact and conclusions of law are required (Id.).
Finally, the Magistrate Judge found no basis for the Court to grant
Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint, as it is patently obvious
in Plaintiff’s motion that any such amendment would be futile
(Id.).
II.

Discussion
Plaintiff’s

objection

(doc.

29)

levels

a

number

of

accusations at the Magistrate Judge, which are lacking in merit.
Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the Court did indeed permit
Plaintiff to file objections that were arguably late, but found the
interests of justice militated in his favor (doc. 19).

Plaintiff

further misconstrues the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Rule 52 is
inapplicable here by arguing that she “alleges that this court is
not bound by [such Rule]. . .and that none of the recommendations
[by the Magistrate Judge] were based on facts and. . .are purely
arbitrary” (doc. 29).

The Magistrate Judge in no way stated the

Court is not bound by Rule 52, she only correctly stated it is

2

inapplicable.

Plaintiff

contends

the

Magistrate

Judge

“has

breached [her] fiduciary duty to the Constitution,” and concludes
that he “has sufficiently refuted the arbitrary opinions and false
statements of the [Magistrate Judge]” such that in his view he
merits the relief he seeks (Id.).
The Court has reviewed the record, Plaintiff’s strident
and unwarranted objection, and finds no basis under Rule 59 for the
relief

Plaintiff

seeks.

Plaintiff

has

failed

to

show

any

applicable intervening change in controlling law, nor a clear error
of law, he has raised no new factual allegations, and he has not
demonstrated a manifest injustice resulting from the Court’s Order.
On the record before the Court any amendment of Plaintiff’s
Complaint would also be futile.

The Court simply lacks subject

matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Complaint for each of the
reasons previously articulated in the record (docs. 24, 25).
III.

Conclusion
Proper Notice has been given to the parties under 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), including notice that the parties would
waive further appeal if they failed to file objections to the
Report and Recommendation in a timely manner.

United States v.

Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Having reviewed this matter de novo pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§

636,

the

Court

finds

the

Magistrate

Judge’s

Recommendation thorough, well-reasoned, and correct.

3

Report

and

Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 28), and DENIES
Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Vacate Opinion and Order and Demand
for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (doc. 27).

SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 9, 2014

s/S. Arthur Spiegel
S. Arthur Spiegel
United States Senior District Judge

4