Knecht v. Cincinnati City of et al

Filing 26

ORDER rejecting 21 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to the extent that this matter is REMANDED to the Magistrate Judge for further consideration of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint 14 . Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 8/27/2013. (km1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER KNECHT,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF CINCINNATI, et. al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

NO. 1:12-CV-00763

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (doc. 21), Plaintiff’s Objection (doc.
23), and the City’s Reply (doc. 24).

For the reasons indicated

herein, the Court declines to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and

Recommendation

and

REMANDS

this

matter

for

further

consideration.
I.

Background
Plaintiff brings this pro se action under state and

federal law alleging civil rights violations by the City of
Cincinnati and Margo Springs (doc. 14).

Plaintiff essentially

contends that Defendants, who maintain the database which contains
his

criminal

history,

have

reported

inaccurately a number of times (Id.).

his

criminal

history

As a result, Plaintiff

alleges he was denied employment, denied an apartment lease, denied
social

service

benefits,

and

subjected

to

heightened

police

interaction (Id.).
II. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and the
Parties’ Responses
The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
on July 26, 2013, regarding the City’s motion to dismiss (doc. 17),
indicating that such motion be granted and this case be terminated
on the docket (doc. 21).

The Magistrate Judge found no basis for

subject-matter or diversity jurisdiction, reasoning that even if
Plaintiff has invoked jurisdiction, his Complaint fails to state
any federal claim upon which relief may be granted (Id.).
Magistrate

Judge

further

found

Defendant

Springs

entitled

The
to

qualified immunity, and the City entitled to state tort immunity
(Id.).
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation

on

the

basis

that

it

addressed

his

original

Complaint, but offered no analysis of his fourth cause of action,
as articulated in his Amended Complaint (doc. 14).
of

action

Plaintiff

alleges

“the

Due

Process

In such cause
Clause

of

the

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution entitles
Plaintiff to notice and a hearing before adverse action is taken
against him affecting his liberty, and this Court should declare
the rights of plaintiff and all others similarly situated as it
relates to criminal records practices by defendants” (Id.).
Plaintiff essentially requests declaratory judgment that he has a
protected liberty interest in having accurate, complete criminal

2

history

transcripts

maintained,

compiled,

prepared,

and

disseminated against him by defendants as authorized by Ohio law
(Id.).
The City responds that because the Magistrate Judge
referenced Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint in footnote one of the
Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge’s analysis covered
the Amended Complaint and should be affirmed (doc. 24).

The City

essentially characterizes Plaintiff’s objection as “broad-sweeping”
and lacking in requisite specificity (Id.).
III.

Discussion
Having reviewed this matter, the Court finds that out of

an abundance of caution, Plaintiff’s Complaint merits further
review.

The Court does not find an outright dismissal of

Plaintiff’s action in the interests of justice where only cursory
analysis of his due process claim has been granted.

Although the

City indicates the Magistrate Judge referenced Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint in a footnote, the Court’s review of the Report and
Recommendation
Complaint.

yields

nothing

regarding

Count

Four

of

the

The City contends Plaintiff’s objection is lacking in

specificity; one could argue similarly regarding the City’s attack
on Plaintiff’s due process claim.
As such, the Court finds appropriate a remand to the
Magistrate Judge for further consideration of Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint.

Accordingly, the Court REJECTS the Magistrate Judge’s

Report and Recommendation (doc. 21) to the extent that it REMANDS
3

this matter to the Magistrate Judge for further consideration of
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (doc. 14).

SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 27, 2013

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

4