Hobbs v. Faulkner et al

Filing 169

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation re 144 Report and Recommendation denying 142 Motion for Sanctions; this matter shall remain closed and terminated from the active docket of this Court. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 2/22/21. (ba)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Case: 1:17-cv-00441-MRB-MRM Doc #: 169 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 2255

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Ryan D. Hobbs,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:17cv441

v.

Judge Michael R. Barrett

Derek Faulkner, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s March 31, 2020 Report
and Recommendations (“R&R”) recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions be
denied. (Doc. 144).
The parties were given proper notice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72(b), including notice that the parties would waive further appeal if they failed to file
objections to the R&R in a timely manner. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947,
949-950 (6th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff filed timely objections to the R&R. (Doc. 147).
This Court shall consider objections to a magistrate judge's order on a
nondispositive matter and “shall modify or set aside any portion of the magistrate judge's
order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ.P. 72(a). When
objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are received on a
dispositive matter, the assigned district judge “must determine de novo any part of the
magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3). After review, the district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended
disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with

Case: 1:17-cv-00441-MRB-MRM Doc #: 169 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 2256

instructions.” Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff brought a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
Defendants. Plaintiff claims Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by violating his right
to assistance of counsel and right to jury trial; and for violating his rights under Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). On March 29, 2019, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims
and entered judgment. (Docs. 75, 76). On April 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal.
(Doc. 77). On July 8, 2020, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this Court’s
dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87
(1994). (Doc. 155).
Plaintiff filed his Motion for Sanctions while his appeal was still pending before the
Sixth Circuit. In the Motion, Plaintiff repeats his allegations of Brady violations and
requests that in the event that this matter is remanded following appeal, this Court conduct
a hearing and order discovery regarding the alleged prosecutorial misconduct. The
Magistrate Judge recommends denying Plaintiff’s Motion, noting that “Plaintiff seeks
sanctions against the Defendants on the basis of characterizations of Defendants’
conduct which the Court has repeatedly refused to accept.” (Doc. 144, PAGEID# 2072).
In his objections to the R&R, Plaintiff maintains that this Court has a duty to look
into misconduct of a party before this Court. Plaintiff maintains that Defendants’ unethical
conduct is continuing and this Court has a duty to report the conduct to the Ohio State
Bar Association.
While Plaintiff insists that his motion for sanctions is separate from his § 1983 claim
against Defendants, he does not set forth any specific ongoing acts of misconduct. The
only misconduct identified by Plaintiff is the alleged Brady violations which form the basis

2

Case: 1:17-cv-00441-MRB-MRM Doc #: 169 Filed: 02/22/21 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 2257

of his § 1983 claim. However, as the Sixth Circuit has ruled, those claims are barred from
consideration under Heck.
Having reviewed this matter de novo in accordance with Rule 72 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s March 31, 2020 R&R
(Doc. 144) to be thorough, well-reasoned, and correct. Accordingly, the Magistrate
Judge’s March 31, 2020 R&R (Doc. 144) is ADOPTED in its entirety, and Plaintiff’s
Objections are OVERRULED. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions
(Doc. 142) is DENIED. This matter shall remain CLOSED and TERMINATED from the
active docket of this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Michael R. Barrett
JUDGE MICHAEL R. BARRETT

3