Enyart v. O'Brien et al

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING and AFFIRMING the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 14 in that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. Signed by Judge George C. Smith on 6/15/18. (sem)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
RICHARD E. ENYART, JR.,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No.: 2:17-cv-877
JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH
Magistrate Judge Deavers

RON O’BRIEN, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
On November 13, 2017, the United States Magistrate Judge issued an Initial Screen
Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed for failure to
assert any claim over which this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. (See Report and
Recommendation, Doc. 4). The parties were advised of their right to object to the Report and
Recommendation. This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report
and Recommendation and Order. (See Doc. 15). The Court will consider the matter de novo.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The objections present the same issues considered by the Magistrate Judge in the Report
and Recommendation. Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that his claims are
barred by a two-year statute of limitations. The Court agrees that the allegations in the
Complaint that form the basis for Plaintiff’s claims occurred well before the two-year statute of
limitations period. The alleged actions actually took place ten years ago, in 2008. Plaintiff
argues that the statute of limitations period does not begin to run until he exhausted all of his
state court/direct appeals, which occurred on October 12, 2015 when the United States Supreme

Court declined certiorari review. Plaintiff asserts that he filed this matter on October 10, 2017,
within the applicable two-year period. However, Plaintiff is incorrect in his assertions. In Heck
v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), the United States Supreme Court held that a §1983
“cause of action for damage attributable to an unconstitutional conviction or sentence does not
accrue until the conviction or sentence has been invalidated.” Those are not the circumstances
that exist in this case.
Further, as set forth in detail in the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff cannot
challenge the validity of his conviction under § 1983. A convicted criminal defendant cannot
bring a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if a judgment on the claim “would necessarily imply the
invalidity” of his criminal conviction and that conviction has not been set aside. Heck, 512 U.S.
at 487. Similarly, Plaintiff cannot seek to recover money damages under § 1983 unless he can
prove the conviction or sentence has been overturned. Id. at 486-87. Therefore, to maintain this
§1983 claim, Plaintiff must have succeeded in having his conviction overturned.
Therefore, for the reasons stated in detail in the Report and Recommendation, this Court
finds that Plaintiff’s objections are without merit and are hereby OVERRULED.
The Report and Recommendation and Order, Document 4, is ADOPTED and
AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.
The Clerk shall remove Documents 4 and 15 from the Court’s pending motions list. The
Clerk shall terminate this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ George C. Smith__________________
GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2