Brown v. Cincinnati Police Department et al

Filing 16

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - In addition to the recommended sua sponte dismissal of all other claims against other Defendants set forth in the Supplemental R&R (doc. 7 ), IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT Defendants' motion to dismiss the c laims against Defendants Wermuth, Ward, Pect and Esser in their individual capacities (doc. 13 ) should be GRANTED. In light of the recommended dismissal of all claims against all Defendants in both the previously filed Supplemental Report and Reco mmendation and this Report and Recommendation, this case should be CLOSED. Objections to R&R due by 12/6/2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 11/22/2024. (km)(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
DAQUAN BROWN,

Case No. 1:24-cv-316

Plaintiff,

McFarland, J.
Bowman, M.J.

v.
CINCINNATI POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On June 7, 2024, Plaintiff DaQuan Brown, proceeding pro se, filed an application
seeking to initiate the above-captioned case in forma pauperis, or without payment of a
filing fee. On July 8, 2024, Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and a handful of claims against four individual Defendants
were permitted to proceed “in an abundance of caution.” (Doc. 4, PageID 135). On August
6, 2024, the undersigned filed a Supplemental Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in
order to screen a newly filed amended complaint. (Doc. 8). In the Supplemental R&R,
which remains pending before the presiding district judge,1 the undersigned again
recommended the sua sponte dismissal of all claims asserted by Plaintiff other than
claims against Defendants Wermuth, Ward, Pect and Esser in their individual capacities.
In lieu of filing an answer to the amended complaint, the four individual Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). After Plaintiff
failed to file any timely response, the Court directed Plaintiff to “SHOW CAUSE, in writing

1

The undersigned withdrew the original screening R&R in light of the filing of the amended complaint. On
August 20, 2024, Plaintiff filed objections to the Supplemental R&R.

on or before November 15, 2024, why Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss … should not be
construed as unopposed and granted for the reasons stated.” Plaintiff again failed to file
any timely response. Having again reviewed the now-unopposed motion to dismiss in
light of Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the “show cause” order, the undersigned finds
Defendants’ arguments to be well-taken.
Accordingly, in addition to the recommended sua sponte dismissal of all other
claims against other Defendants set forth in the Supplemental R&R (Doc. 7), IT IS
FURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims against
Defendants Wermuth, Ward, Pect and Esser in their individual capacities (Doc. 13) should
be GRANTED. In light of the recommended dismissal of all claims against all Defendants
in both the previously filed Supplemental R&R and this R&R, this case should be
CLOSED.

s/Stephanie K. Bowman
Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Magistrate Judge

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
DAQUAN BROWN,

Case No. 1:24-cv-316

Plaintiff,

McFarland, J.
Bowman, M.J.

v.
CINCINNATI POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

NOTICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections to this Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of
the filing date of this R&R. That period may be extended further by the Court on timely
motion by either side for an extension of time. All objections shall specify the portion(s) of
the R&R objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of
the objections. A party shall respond to an opponent’s objections within FOURTEEN (14)
DAYS after being served with a copy of those objections. 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