White v. Ohio Fair Plan
Filing
45
OPINION AND ORDER. Plaintiff's Objections, Doc. Nos. 39 , 40 , 41 , 43 and 44 are DENIED. Plaintiff's motions to supplement his opposition and objections, Doc. Nos. 39 , 41 and 44 are GRANTED. The Order and Report and Recommenda tion, Doc. No. 37 , is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 31 , is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 29 , is DENIED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter FINAL JUDGMENT in this action. Signed by Judge Algenon L. Marbley on 8/19/2011. (pes1)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
DARRELL WHITE,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 2:10-CV-1117
JUDGE MARBLEY
MAGISTRATE JUDGE KING
OHIO FAIR PLAN,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
On May 24, 2011, the United States Magistrate Judge recommended
that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, Doc. No. 29, be denied
and that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Doc. No. 31, be
granted.
Order and Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 37.
This
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s various objections to that
recommendation.
Doc. Nos. 39, 40, 41, 43 and 44.
Plaintiff’s
motions for leave to supplement his opposition and objections, Doc.
Nos. 39, 41, 44, are GRANTED.
For the reasons that follow, however,
Plaintiff’s Objections are denied and the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge is adopted and affirmed.
I.
Plaintiff Darrell White [“Plaintiff”], an inmate who is
proceeding without the assistance of counsel, brings this action
against the Ohio Fair Plan [“Defendant”] in connection with a dispute
regarding an insurance policy.
Plaintiff asserts various
constitutional violations against the Defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1981 and 1983.
Plaintiff also asserts claims arising under state
law.
As the Magistrate Judge noted, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint,
Doc. No. 15, alleges only in conclusory fashion that his rights were
violated by Defendant.
Because Plaintiff offered little by way of
factual support for his claims, Defendant clarified the facts giving
rise to this action.
In particular, this action follows a state court
action in which Plaintiff challenged Defendant’s denial of insurance
coverage following a fire at his property located in Lima, Ohio, in
2006.
See Exhibit 1 attached to Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment.
The Court of Common Pleas for Franklin County, Ohio,
dismissed that action after concluding that Plaintiff’s claim was
barred by the one year limitation period set forth in the insurance
policy.
See Exhibit 3, at 2-3, id.
Plaintiff appealed that decision
but the appeal was dismissed because Plaintiff failed to file an
appellate brief.
See Exhibit 5, id.
Plaintiff appealed that decision
to the Ohio Supreme Court, which refused jurisdiction on March 10,
2010.
See Exhibit 7, id.
In addressing the Motions for Summary Judgment in this action,
the Magistrate Judge concluded that “under the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine, [the Court] lacks jurisdiction to review the decision of the
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, which appears to be the crux of
Plaintiff’s claims in this Court.”
Recommendation, at 5.
Order and Report and
The Magistrate Judge further concluded that the
doctrine of res judicata precluded Plaintiff from relitigating the
insurance coverage issue in this Court because those are claims that
2
either were or could have been raised in the state court action.
at 5-6.
Id.,
Thus, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 29, be denied and that
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 31, be granted.
Plaintiff has filed various objections to this recommendation.
The Court now addresses the merits of these objections and reviews the
matter de novo.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
II.
Plaintiff argues that his case should not be dismissed without
addressing the merits of his constitutional claims against Defendant.
See Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave and Objection, Doc. No. 39, at 1-2.
Plaintiff also takes issue with the Magistrate Judge’s reliance on
Defendant’s recitation of the factual background giving rise to this
case.
Id., at 3.
Finally, Plaintiff argues that counsel should have
been appointed to assist him in this action.
Objection, Doc. No. 40, at 1.
See Plaintiff’s
In short, Plaintiff maintains that he
has been discriminated against and denied his federal constitutional
rights and that this Court should adjudicate his claims.
See also
Instanter Motion to Supplement, Doc. No. 44.
In reviewing the matter de novo, this Court concludes that the
Magistrate Judge’s decision was correct.
Despite Plaintiff’s
contention that his discrimination and constitutional claims must be
adjudicated, the fact remains that the claims concern a matter already
litigated in state court.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars this Court
from reviewing a matter that was the subject of an earlier state court
3
action.
See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923);
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).
Further, the doctrine of res judicata requires this Court to give
preclusive effect to that final state court judgment.
Michigan, 474 F.3d 324, 330 (6th Cir. 2007).
See Abbott v.
This means that, even
though the state court did not reach the merits of plaintiff’s claims,
its final judgment dismissing the case as untimely precludes the
litigation in this Court of all claims that either were or should have
been raised in the state court.
The Court also finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s reliance
on Defendant’s recitation of the factual and procedural history of the
proceedings in state court.
Contrary to Plaintiff’s suggestion, the
Court has not ignored the nature of Plaintiff’s claims; rather, those
claims must be considered in light of the full record from which they
arise.
Finally, the Court disagrees with Plaintiff’s contention that
counsel should have been appointed to assist him.
The appointment of
counsel would not change the result of this action.
For all these reasons, the Court denies the Objections raised by
Plaintiff and adopts and affirms the recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge.
III.
WHEREUPON, Plaintiff’s Objections, Doc. Nos. 39, 40, 41, 43 and
44 are DENIED.
Plaintiff’s motions to supplement his opposition and
objections, Doc. Nos.
39, 41 and 44, are GRANTED.
Report and Recommendation,
The Order and
Doc. No. 37, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED.
4
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 31, is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 29, is DENIED.
The
Clerk is DIRECTED to enter FINAL JUDGMENT in this action.
s/Algenon L. Marbley
Algenon L. Marbley
United States District Judge
5
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?