McQueen v. White

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; OVERRULING Plaintiff's Objections. This case is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to enter Judgment for Defendant. Signed by Judge Algenon L. Marbley on 6/27/2016. (cw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JOHN W. MCQUEEN,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
v.
MARK A. WHITE,
Defendant.

Case No. 2:16-CV-0152
JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY
Magistrate Judge Kemp

OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff John W. McQueen’s Objection (Doc. 9) to
Magistrate Judge Kemp’s May 18, 2016 Report and Recommendation recommending that this
case be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. 6.) For the
reasons that follow, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED.
I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff John W. McQueen commenced this action on February 18, 2016, stating that he
had filed a civil-rights complaint in state court alleging violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights. (Doc. 1.) Specifically, he alleges that Defendant Dr. Mark A. White showed
“deli[b]erate indifference to his serious medical needs by addicting hi[m] to pain killers, and then
discontin[]uing the medication, claiming he had made a mistake[,] [t]hus leaving [Plaintiff] to
suffer with broken bones and no treatment.” (Doc. 9 at 1–2.) Plaintiff seeks to pursue a claim
against Defendant in this Court that was already decided against Plaintiff in state court. (Doc. 6
at 2.) The Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, but because

1

Plaintiff did not allege that the doctor was a state employee or otherwise a state actor and
“because the state courts decided this exact issue against [Plaintiff],” the Magistrate Judge
recommended that the complaint be dismissed. (Doc. 6 at 4–5.) Plaintiff objected to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, arguing that he is not seeking to appeal the
state court judgment, but rather pursuing compensation for the violation of his constitutional
rights. (Doc. 9 at 2.)
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on a dispositive
matter, the district judge “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition
that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
After review, the district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition;
receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
Because Plaintiff moved the Court to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915,
the Magistrate Judge conducted an initial screening of the complaint under § 1915(e)(2), which
provides that “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines” that the action
“fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” In order to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, a plaintiff must satisfy the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a). Rule 8(a) requires that a complaint set forth “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” as well as “a demand for the relief sought.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), (3). The purpose of Rule 8 is to “give the defendant fair notice of what
the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The factual allegations of the

2

complaint “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. Thus, a
complaint that suggests “the mere possibility of misconduct” is insufficient; rather, the complaint
must state “a plausible claim for relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
III.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff argues that he does not seek to appeal the state court judgment (Doc. 9 at 1), but
it is nevertheless clear that he seeks relief based upon the same allegations at issue in that case.
(Doc. 9; Doc. 6.) While Plaintiff has rephrased his grievances against Dr. White, the Complaint
shows that Plaintiff’s claims have already been litigated in state court, precluding their reargument in federal court. See Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923). As the
Supreme Court explained in Allen v. McCurry, “Congress has specifically required all federal
courts to give preclusive effect to state-court judgments whenever the courts of the State from
which the judgments emerge would do so.” 449 U.S. 90, 96 (1980). Here, Plaintiff’s case was
dismissed by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, the dismissal was affirmed by the
Tenth District Court of Appeals, and the Ohio Supreme Court declined to review the appeal.
(Doc. 1 at 4.) Thus, the state-court judgment against Plaintiff precludes this Court from
considering his claim. Id.
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objection (Doc. 9) and
ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 6.) Plaintiff’s Complaint
is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to enter Judgment for Defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Algenon L. Marbley
ALGENON L. MARBLEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: June 27, 2016

3