Jones v. Singer et al

Filing 26

ENTRY AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - overruling objections 25 , adopting Report and Recommendations 24 in their entirety and terminating this case. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 1-17-2017. (de)(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
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

FLORA B. JONES
Plaintiff
vs.

Case No. 3:16-cv-142

JUDGE GREGORY F. SINGER, et al.,
Defendants
_____________________________________________________________________________
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS(DOC.25),
ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC.24)
IN THEIR ENTIRETY; AND TERMINATING THIS CASE
_____________________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff=s Objections (Doc. 25) filed by Plaintiff, Flora
B. Jones (AJones@) to the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 24) in which Magistrate Judge
Michael Newman recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff=s Motion to Amend Complaint and
dismiss Plaintiff=s federal claims against all Defendants with prejudice and state claims without
prejudice.
As required by 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the
Court has made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon said review, the Court finds that
Jones=s Objections (Doc. 25) are not well taken and they are hereby OVERRULED. The Court
ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 24) in their entirety.
In so ruling, this Court finds as the Magistrate Judge concluded, that Plaintiff seeks to
assert Section 1983 claims against Defendants Mohler, Upton, Rosemont, MMR and O=Neil, all
private citizens, with no allegations asserted that would bring them within the definition of state
actor. Plaintiff, therefore, fails to state a claim against these Defendants under Section 1983 upon
which relief can be granted.
Also, as to her Section 1983 claims against the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court,

those claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution in addition
to the fact the Court is not sui juris and cannot be sued in its own right.
As to the Section 1983 claims against Judge Singer and Krumholtz, these Judges are
absolutely immune from damages since Plaintiff make no allegations that they were not acting as a
judge and in the complete absence of jurisdiction.
Finally, the request to amend said complaint to add the Supreme Court of Ohio, Judge
Crawford and the Montgomery County Bar Association is not well founded. Due to the
applicability of the Eleventh Amendment, Judicial Immunity and the reasoning previously stated
with regard to Section 1983 claims against private citizens, such amendment would be futile.
Plaintiff=s Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 21) is DENIED. Defendants= Motions to
Dismiss (Doc. 10, 11, 14) are GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Federal 18 U.S.C. Section 1983 claims
against all Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff=s state claims against all
Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of Courts is ORDERED to terminate
this case on the docket of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

January 17, 2017

*s/Thomas M. Rose
_______________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE