Lawton v. Ohio Supreme Court et al

Filing 8

ORDER ADOPTING the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 4 in that this case is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Gregory L Frost on 9/12/13. (sem1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
NORMAN H. LAWTON,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:13-cv-748
JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST
Magistrate Judge Mark R. Abel

v.
STATE OF OHIO SUPREME COURT, et al.,
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s August 5,
2013 Initial Screening Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 4.) In that filing, the Magistrate
Judge conducted an initial screen of Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and
recommended that the Court dismiss this action “because plaintiff has already adjudicated the
claims pleaded and this court is without jurisdiction to review the adverse state court rulings he
seeks to re-litigate here.” (ECF No. 4, at Page ID # 512.)
Plaintiff has objected to the Initial Screening Report and Recommendation. (ECF No.
6.) When a party objects within the allotted time to a report and recommendation, the Court
“shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b). Upon review, the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
In his objections, Plaintiff essentially argues that the Magistrate Judge’s invocation of the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine is erroneous. In presenting this argument, Plaintiff repeats many of

1

the allegations of his lengthy pleading and presents analysis that is simply not always clear.
What the objections do make clear, however, is that Plaintiff is indeed attempting to invalidate
the state court proceedings by recasting state court arguments in the form of a federal due
process action. As the Magistrate Judge correctly explained, this is something that the Plaintiff
cannot do. Plaintiff’s arguments are for the state trial court and the state appellate courts, not for
this Court. Plaintiff’s objections reject this point and merely reassert the contentions of his
pleading.
Having conducted a de novo review and after consideration of the Initial Screening
Report and Recommendation and the objections, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections
(ECF No. 6), ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Initial Screening Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 4), and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint. The Clerk shall enter judgment
accordingly and terminate this case on the docket records of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Gregory L. Frost
GREGORY L. FROST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2