Mobley v. City of Columbus et al

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; Overruling Plaintiff's Objection; denying at moot 6 Plaintiff's Motion for Judicial Notice; denying as moot Defendants' 7 Motion to Dismiss. This case is terminated. Signed by Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley on 5/12/2020. (cw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Case: 2:20-cv-01176-ALM-CMV Doc #: 12 Filed: 05/12/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 280

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ALPHONSO MOBLEY, JR.,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No.: 2:20-cv-1176
Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley
Magistrate Judge Vascura

CITY OF COLUMBUS, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
On March 30, 2020, the United States Magistrate Judge issued an Order and Report and
Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis
be granted and that this case be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) and 1915A. (ECF
No. 4, Order and Report and Recommendation). The parties were advised of their right to object
to the Order and Report and Recommendation. This matter is now before the Court on
Plaintiff’s Objections to the Order and Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff has
also filed a Motion for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 6) and Defendants have filed a Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 7). The Court will consider the matter de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
In his objections, Plaintiff generally argues that the Magistrate Judge did not consider all
the facts pled. He disputes the Magistrate Judge’s application of Heck. And, he continues to
argue he was deprived his Fourth Amendment rights.
The Court has carefully considered Plaintiff’s objections and finds that the Magistrate
Judge correctly concluded that Plaintiff’s claims in this case are time barred and barred by Heck
v.Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). In assessing a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a court

Case: 2:20-cv-01176-ALM-CMV Doc #: 12 Filed: 05/12/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 281

“must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the
invalidity of his conviction or sentence.” 512 U.S. at 487. If so, “the complaint must be
dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been
invalidated.” Id. Here, Heck, precludes Plaintiff from proceeding with a Fourth Amendment
claim as the success of that claim that would imply the invalidity of his state-court conviction or
sentence. Further, Plaintiff filed this action on March 3, 2020, and the alleged injury that is the
basis for this action occurred in April 2016. The applicable statute of limitations for a claim
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is two years. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims are time barred.
For the reasons stated above and as set forth in detail in the Order and Report and
Recommendation, this Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are without merit and are hereby
OVERRULED. The Magistrate Judge’s Order and Report and Recommendation, Document 4,
is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby DISMISSED. Plaintiff’s
Motion for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 6) and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7) are
DENIED AS MOOT.
The Clerk shall remove Documents 4, 6, and 7 from the Court’s pending motions list.
The Clerk shall terminate this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_____________
_____
ALGENON L. CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DATED: May 12, 2020

2