Burks v. Licking County Child Support Enforcement Agency

Filing 28

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; OVERRULING Plaintiff's Objection; GRANTING 6 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; DENYING AS MOOT 11 Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Cease and Desist; DENYING AS MOOT 16 Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction. This case is DISMISSED. Signed by District Judge Algenon L Marbley on 3/12/2025. (cw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Case: 2:24-cv-02330-ALM-EPD Doc #: 28 Filed: 03/12/25 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 242

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JORDAN BURKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
LICKING COUNTY CHILD
SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No.: 2:24-cv-2330
Judge Algenon L. Marbley
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before this Court on Plaintiff Jordan Burk’s Objection (ECF No. 26) to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 25). The R&R recommends
that this Court grant Defendant Licking County Child Support Enforcement Agency’s Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 6) and deny Plaintiff’s pending motions (ECF Nos. 11; 16). For the reasons
that follow, Plaintiff’s Objection (ECF No. 26) is OVERRULED. Accordingly, the Magistrate
Judge’s R&R (ECF No. 25) is ADOPTED.
I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against Defendant, a Child Support
Enforcement Agency. (ECF No. 1). He explains receiving a letter summoning him to court for a
child support case involving Defendant on or about November 11, 2023. Plaintiff filed various
documents in response including a “show cause,” “summons refusal,” “Notice of Default,”
“Motion to Dismiss,” “Cease & Desist,” “Judicial Notice,” and “Motion to Vacate Child Support
Order.” (Id. at 1-2). Defendants did not respond to these filings. (Id.). Plaintiff then provides a
Closing Statement and Remedy:

Case: 2:24-cv-02330-ALM-EPD Doc #: 28 Filed: 03/12/25 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 243

I grant the name to the court as special deposit for future returns on the interest. I
am not an enemy, nor an ally to an enemy. I am the living man, agent, authorized
user, and beneficiary to JORDAN BURKS. I request all cases to be closed and be
settled for subrogation and release. I want all funds to be reimbursed and everything
restored to its proper status. So, we can go our separate ways, as I do not wish to be
in any contract agreement with this business. I DO NOT CONSENT TO ANY
TRANSACTIONS AGAINST MY PERSON.
(Id. at 3).
Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6). Shortly after, Plaintiff filed a
Motion to Enforce Cease and Desist Immediately (ECF No. 11), and a Motion for
Injunction (ECF No. 16). The Magistrate Judge entered a R&R recommending this court
grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to
state a claim. It was also recommended that this Court deny Plaintiff’s pending motions as
frivolous and moot.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), when reviewing objections to an
R&R, “[t]he 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). In its review, “[t]he district judge
may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the
matter to the magistrate judge with instruction.” Id.
While the Court must consider all timely objections, the “filing of vague, general, or
conclusory objections does not meet the requirement of specific objections and is tantamount to
complete failure to object.” Slater v. Potter, 28 Fed. App’x 512, 513 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Miller
v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 4 1995)). The objections must also “be clear enough to enable
the district court to discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious.” Miller, 50 F.3d at
380 (citing Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs, 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)).

2

Case: 2:24-cv-02330-ALM-EPD Doc #: 28 Filed: 03/12/25 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 244

III.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

In his Objection, Plaintiff copies the allegations made in his Brief filed on January 10,
2025. (ECF Nos. 25, 27). Plaintiff does not attempt to rebut the Magistrate Judge’s findings. An
objection “that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate’s suggested
resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an ‘objection’ as that term
is used in the context of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72.” Brown v. City of Grand Rapids,
Michigan, No. 16-2433, 2017 WL 4712064, at *2 (6th Cir. June 16, 2017) (citing Howard v. Sec’y
of Health & Hum. Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)); see also VanDiver v. Martin, 304 F.
Supp. 2d 934, 937 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (An objection that “merely restates the arguments previously
presented is not sufficient to alert the court to alleged errors on the part of the magistrate judge.”).
Plaintiff’s Objection thus fails substantively to address the R&R. Instead, the filing is the
same brief considered by the Magistrate Judge but with the title “Objection: Motion to Dismiss
Should Be Denied.” Consequently, Plaintiff’s Objection is overruled. See Frazier v. Woods, No.
20-1325, 2020 WL 9263004, at *3 (6th Cir. Nov. 10, 2020) (holding that, “[b]ecause [plaintiff’s]
objections did not specifically address the magistrate judge's findings or conclusions, [he] has
arguably waived further review of his . . . claims.”). This Court will thus adopt the R&R and enter
it as the findings and conclusions of this Court
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation is OVERRULED. (ECF No. 26). Accordingly, the Report and

3

Case: 2:24-cv-02330-ALM-EPD Doc #: 28 Filed: 03/12/25 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 245

Recommendation is ADOPTED. Defendants Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED and
Plaintiff’s Motions (ECF Nos. 11, 16) are DENIED AS MOOT. This case is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

ALGENON L. MARBLEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: March 12, 2025

4