Prince v. Scioto County Common Pleas Court, Court Employee et al

Filing 47

ORDER adopting both 4 the First R&R and 46 the Second R&R. The Court thus grants 41 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and dismisses 3 Prince's Complaint in its entirety with prejudice. Signed by Judge Douglas R. Cole on 7/29/22. (sct)(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
THOMAS R. PRINCE,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:20-cv-652
JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE
Magistrate Judge Bowman

v.
SCIOTO COUNTY COMMON
PLEAS COURT, COURT
EMPLOYEE, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s October 16, 2020,
Report and Recommendations (the “First R&R) (Doc. 4) and on the Magistrate
Judge’s May 18, 2022, Report and Recommendations (the “Second R&R”) (Doc. 46).
In her first R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss
the claims in Plaintiff Thomas R. Prince’s Complaint (Doc. 3), with the exception
of his individual-capacity claims against Defendants James Carter, Bradley
Grooms, and Daryl Wynn. In her second R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends
that the Court also grant those Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
41) and thereby dismiss the remaining claims in Plaintiff Thomas R. Prince’s
Complaint (Doc. 3). For the reasons stated more fully below, the Court ADOPTS
both the First R&R (Doc. 4) and the Second R&R (Doc. 46), GRANTS the
Defendants’

Motion

for

Summary

Judgment

(Doc.

41),

and

thereby

DISMISSES Prince’s Complaint (Doc. 3) in its entirety WITH PREJUDICE.

Each R&R advised that failing to object within the 14 days specified by the
R&R could result in forfeiture of rights on appeal, which includes the right to District
Court review. (See Doc. 4, #59; Doc. 46, #597); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting § 636(b)(1)(C), intended
to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are
filed.”); Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019) (noting “fail[ure] to file
an objection to the magistrate judge’s R&R … is forfeiture”); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
That said, the Court (another Judge was assigned to this case at the time) granted
an extension of time to object to the First R&R until December 30, 2020. (See
11/3/2020 Notation order). And, consistent with that extension, Prince filed his
purported Objection (Doc. 7) to the First R&R on November 18, 2020.
That filing, however, neither cites legal authority, nor otherwise properly
objects to the First R&R. See Richards v. Colvin, No. 2:12cv748, 2013 WL 5487045,
at *1 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2013) (district court review applies only to portions of R&R
to which a proper objection is made). More specifically, Prince fails to identify any
specific asserted error in the First R&R. See Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th
Cir. 1995) (“The objections must be clear enough to enable the district court to discern
those issues that are dispositive and contentious.”). Instead, Prince largely ignores
the First R&R and propounds a narrative according to which Scioto County has a
“conflict of interest” because it is both criminally prosecuting him and defending his
civil action. (See generally Obj., Doc. 7, #71–75). For present purposes, the problem
with that is that Prince’s filing amounts, at best, to a general objection to the

2

Magistrate Judge’s First R&R, which is insufficient. See Howard v. Sec’y of Health &
Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991) (general objection “has the same
effect [] as would a failure to object”).
True, Prince is proceeding pro se, and as such his filings are to be construed
liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972). At the same time, pro se
litigants must still comply with the procedural rules that govern civil cases. McNeil
v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993). Prince has not done so here. Thus, the
Court declines to treat his purported Objection as an actual objection.
As for the Second R&R, the parties would have needed to object by June 1,
2022. No party has objected.
Accordingly, as things stand, both R&Rs are essentially unobjected. But,
although no party has properly objected to either R&R, the advisory committee notes
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) nonetheless suggest that the Court still must
“satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept
the recommendation.” See also Jackson v. Drug Enf’t Admin., No. 1:21-cv-402, 2022
WL 60312, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 6, 2022) (reviewing for clear error absent an objection
to a Magistrate Judge’s R&R); Mavrakis v. Warden, S. Ohio Corr. Facility, No. 5:17
CV 2398, 2018 WL 4104187, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 28, 2018) (same); Mason v.
Comm’r. of Soc. Sec., No. 1:10 CV 2456, 2011 WL 3022016, at *1 (N.D. Ohio July 22,
2011) (same). Here, the Court has reviewed both R&Rs, and concludes that neither
contains “clear error on [its] face.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (advisory committee notes).

3

Prince’s Complaint combines two separate sets of allegations: (1) Prince alleges
that he was convicted and sentenced in state court without a trial despite having
entered a plea of not guilty; and (2) Prince alleges that some of the Defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs after he fell and broke his right
foot on December 31, 2019. (See First R&R, Doc. 4, #54). Pursuant to her sua sponte
screening obligations, the Magistrate Judge determined in her First R&R that the
claims based on the first set of allegations should be dismissed. That is because
Prince’s only option for challenging his state court conviction is to petition for a writ
of habeas corpus, and Prince cannot pursue any constitutional claims for damages
based on that state court conviction unless and until a federal or state court
invalidates it. (See Doc. 4, #55). However, the Magistrate Judge did not at that time
recommend dismissal of the deliberate indifference claims. (See id. at #57).
In her Second R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court grant
the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on those deliberate indifference
claims. The Magistrate Judge found that, for two independent reasons, there was no
genuine dispute that Prince’s deliberate indifference claims fail as a matter of law.
First, the record evidence established that the Defendants did not prevent Prince
from receiving care for his foot, but instead provided ibuprofen and ice, ordered an xray, and facilitated a physician visit to examine it. (See Doc. 46, #594–95). Second,
Prince’s allegations to the contrary notwithstanding, the x-ray and examination
revealed that Prince did not break his foot. (See id. at #595–96).

4

The Court finds no error, much less clear error, in any of these determinations.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS both the First R&R (Doc. 4) and the Second R&R
(Doc. 46). The Court thus GRANTS the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 41) and DISMISSES Prince’s Complaint (Doc. 3) in its entirety
WITH PREJUDICE. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment and
TERMINATE this case on the docket.
SO ORDERED.
July 29, 2022
DATE

DOUGLAS R. COLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5