Brock v. DeWine

Filing 13

OPINION and ORDER adopting 7 the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 5/5/16. (jk) (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
EASTERN DIVISION

Dennis R. Brock,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:15-cv-3050

v.

Judge Michael H. Watson

Attorney General of the State
of Ohio.
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER

On December 29, 2015, Magistrate Judge King, upon an initial screen of the

instant complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e), 1915A, issued a Report and
Recommendation ("R&R") recommending the Court dismiss this action for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. R&R, ECF No. 7.
In so doing, she found that: (1) the Rooker-Feldman abstention doctrine
divests this Court of subject matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs claim challenging

state court decisions characterizing him as a vexatious litigator; (2) Plaintiff fails to
state a claim that Ohio Revised Code § 2323.52 is unconstitutional because it

impedes his right to pursue a habeas corpus action; and (3) to the extent Plaintiff
alleges that Ohio Revised Code § 2323.52 violates the Ohio Constitution, the Court
lacks jurisdiction to hear that claim. Id. at 2-5.

Plaintiff objects. ECF No. 9. The Court has thoroughly reviewed Plaintiffs
objections and finds them meritless. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs
objection, ECF No. 9, ADOPTS the R&R, and dismisses this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 2:15-cv-3050

Page 2 of 2