Holbrook v. Pols et al
Filing
32
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 26 ). Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 2/21/18. (jlm)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
CHARLES HUDSON
HOLBROOK,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TIMOTHY POLS, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 1:16-cv-834
Judge Timothy S. Black
Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman
DECISION AND ENTRY
ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 26)
This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division to United
States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the
Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on December 13,
2017, submitted a Report and Recommendations. (Doc. 26). Plaintiff filed objections on
February 13, 2018. (Docs. 27, 28, 29).
Plaintiff’s objections are not well taken. Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the
Baraca Correctional Facility in Baraca, Michigan. This case is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
filed by Plaintiff against the City of Wyoming, Michigan; the Wyoming, Michigan Police
Department; and Officer Timothy Pols. (Doc. 1). In an Order dated September 19, 2016,
the Magistrate Judge entered an Order transferring the case to the Western District of
Michigan, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which provides that civil suits may be brought
1
only in the judicial district where (1) any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the
same State; (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim
occurred; or (3) any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the claim
may otherwise be brought.
Despite the transfer of this case, Plaintiff has continued to make frivolous filings
upon the docket of this Court. Accordingly, on October 13, 2017 the Magistrate Judge
entered an Order denying Plaintiff’s filings as moot and advising him that any further
filings would be summarily denied and stricken from the record. (Doc. 20). However,
Plaintiff has continued to make filings despite the Magistrate Judge’s repeated
instructions that such filings are appropriately made only in the Western District of
Michigan. Five such filings were made and summarily stricken from the record between
October 13, 2017 and December 11, 2017.
Plaintiff’s persistence in defiance of the Magistrate Judge’s previous Orders has
led to the filing of this Report and Recommendations, which recommends that the Clerk
of Court be directed to refuse all further filings by Plaintiff in this matter. Plaintiff’s
objections to the Report and Recommendations cite no law that would override the venue
statue requiring him to file his case elsewhere. Instead, Plaintiff asks the Court to ignore
the rules of venue based upon unsupported allegations of corruption and incompetence in
the Western District of Michigan. (Doc. 28; Doc. 29, at 4).
The Court cannot and will not ignore the law governing venue in this case. It has
been made exceedingly clear that any claims Plaintiff has made against the City of
Wyoming, Michigan and its police department must be made in the Western District of
2
Michigan. Plaintiff’s case in this district is closed and has been closed since it was
transferred on September 9, 2016. The Court will not continue to expend resources
processing Plaintiff’s frivolous filings in this matter. The Report and Recommendations
is therefore adopted in its entirety.
Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is hereby DIRECTED to refuse and return
without filing, all further filings received from Plaintiff in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 2/21/18
s/Timothy S. Black
Timothy S. Black
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?