Abdurraheem et al v. Jones et al

Filing 10

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 8 MOTION to Reopen Case filed by Mahaamad Abdurraheem. IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion to reopen this case be DENIED. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1 915(a) that an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith and therefore deny Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Objections to R&R due by 1/21/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 1/7/2022. (km)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Case: 1:20-cv-00206-MWM-SKB Doc #: 10 Filed: 01/07/22 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 50

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
MAHAAMAD ABDURRAHEEM, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 1:20-cv-206
McFarland, J.
Bowman, M.J.

v.
AARON JONES, et al.,
Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In March of 2020, Plaintiffs Mahaamad Abdurraheem and Lynda Foster, both
residents of Cincinnati, Ohio, filed this pro se action against three individuals and the
Department of Child Protective Services. Plaintiffs were granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Upon sua sponte review of the complaint,
the undersigned recommended dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, and alternatively, for failure to state any claim under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). (Doc. 5).
The prior Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending dismissal, filed on
April 1, 2020, informed Plaintiffs that any Objections must be filed within 14 days. When
no Objections were filed, the presiding district judge adopted the R&R as the opinion of
the Court. (Doc. 6). The case was closed on June 26, 2020. (Doc. 7). Approximately
20 months after the prior R&R was filed, on November 29, 2021, Plaintiff Mahaamad
Abdurraheem (but not Ms. Foster) filed a “Motion to Reopen Case.” In his motion, Plaintiff
suggests that he was unable to timely respond to the R&R within the original 14-day

Case: 1:20-cv-00206-MWM-SKB Doc #: 10 Filed: 01/07/22 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 51

period1 because he was sick “for 5 weeks and my diabetes is holding me Prisoner.” (Doc.
8 at 1).2
Plaintiff’s motion to reopen this case should be denied. For the reasons stated in
the prior R&R, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims and he
fails to state a claim against any identified defendant. Plaintiff’s alleged illness – allegedly
for a period of “5 weeks” – does not excuse his failure to file Objections to the R&R for
nearly 20 months after the R&R was filed, nor does it allow him to “reopen” the case more
than 17 months after final judgment was entered. If Plaintiff required extra time for
Objections to the original April 1, 2020 R&R, he was required to file a motion to extend
the deadline prior to its expiration. Last, even if considered on the merits, the content of
his motion to reopen this case offers no new insights or basis for subject matter jurisdiction
in federal court, or for any cognizable federal claim against any Defendant.
Conclusion and Recommendation
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion to reopen this case be
DENIED. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a) that for the foregoing reasons an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and
Recommendation would not be taken in good faith and therefore deny Plaintiff leave to
appeal in forma pauperis.
s/ Stephanie K. Bowman
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Magistrate Judge

1
Plaintiff’s motion states “I was not able able [sic] to reply in 15 days after the document about this case.”
(Doc. 8 at 1, emphasis added). However, as clearly stated in the R&R, Objections must be filed within 14
days.
2
A second document filed on the same date bears the case caption and the statement: “I was sick I could
not move because of Cov-19 – Diabetes.” (Doc. 9). Only the pending motion requires Court action.

2

Case: 1:20-cv-00206-MWM-SKB Doc #: 10 Filed: 01/07/22 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 52

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
MAHAAMAD ABDURRAHEEM, et al.,

Case No. 1:20-cv-206

Plaintiffs,

McFarland, J.
Bowman, M.J.

v.
AARON JONES, et al.,
Defendants.

NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy
of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to
the proposed findings and recommendations.

This period may be extended further by

the Court on timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of
the Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of
the objections. If the Report and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon
matters occurring on the record at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly
arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all parties may agree
upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge
otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections WITHIN 14 DAYS
after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in accordance with this
procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United
States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

3